
![]() |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

WoTC has a dirty little secret.
A Brand is just a word.
WoTC, or more accurately Hasbro, hires people to write rules and modules and then releases them to us with a label.
And so does Paizo.
The people that actually write the words change from year to year. The brand doesn't.
The reason 3.0 became so popular came in three parts. First, they got people to real the rules they released because they were a brand people recognized and respected.
Second, the rules they put out were pretty good. Not great, 3.0 was flawed enough that 3.5 followed a few short years later...but pretty good.
And third, and most importantly, the OGL encouraged freelancers. And freelancers are the people who eventually get hired to write the material.
4E is not being replaced because of the first reason. Certainly in 2008 WoTC had the clout to get us all to at least take a look, regardless of how distasteful we found the transition.
4E is not being replaced because of the quality of the rules, which while I personally found to be a major step back weren't completely unpalatable.
4E is being replaced because the people who wrote the rules and the modules in house aren't nearly as good as an open free market of ideas.
Paizo is very small. But they pull from a large pool of writers and artists. They have access to this pool because they pay them money and ask very little in exchange regarding what they do outside of the project they are assigned. If Wolfgang Baur wants to write a competing setting, feel free. If Monte Cook wants to write a module for Paizo then go help design 5E, good for him.
Paizo doesn't care what freelancers do on the side, as long as they put out quality products when paid to do so.
Paizo is what Newt Gingrich wanted from his wife. An open relationship.
WoTC's genius in 2000 when they created the OGL was what made them "The World's Most Popular Role Playing Game."
Who is left from those times? Monte? And only because he was hired to come back.
So what is WoTC? What is the link between the 2012 company and the company that saved the brand when TSR was going under?
It is a label.
While I've heard lip service about the mistakes of the GSL vs OGL, I am skeptical until I see a return.
WoTC could design a brilliant system, but it will be nothing without support. They could address all of our concerns, but it will be nothing without a system that allows evolution to correct the concerns not yet discovered.
And why should we believe that the WoTC team now working will find some panacea every other game developer has missed in the past...including the staff on the team itself.
For now, the d20 system is the best system on the market, in large part because of the available variations and options that exist that have been run through all of our games through the years. It is the reliable truck that gets it done, that every mechanic knows how to work on.
It is they system you can find players for, and you can find GM's to run.
5E still can get people to read it, on brand. Although a lot less will pay for the privilege.
And I have no reason to think that with the devs involved it won't be a decent game, although I also have no reason to think it will be better than anything else they each put out in the past, none of which are better than the current d20 system.
The real question is if they can get the freelance community to come on board and put out quality material because they will have a personal investment in the system beyond a paycheck.
Frankly, I would be a lot more hopeful if the same group was putting it out as a freelance rather than under Hasbro.
Either way, the d20 system has a 12 year head start.

Werecorpse |

WoTC's genius in 2000 when they created the OGL was what made them "The World's Most Popular Role Playing Game."
.
Really? I doubt it.
I would have thought D&D had been the worlds most popular roleplaying game for most if not all of the previous 20+ years prior to the OGL.
The OGL as it applies to the 3.0 and 3.5 system did a lot for the game ( I would say it was positive, not all would agree) but it isn't required to make an enjoyable or popular game. In fact as virtually no other rpg system uses an OGL ( to the bet of my knowledge ) I would say it was a transformative marketing event but doesn't really effect the game system.
I do agree that 3.5 is the best system and I suspect they will be alert to that when designing the new game. I hope they have a permissive license because there are plenty of great 3PP out there. But if they don't they could still make a great game.

![]() |

ciretose wrote:WoTC's genius in 2000 when they created the OGL was what made them "The World's Most Popular Role Playing Game."
.Really? I doubt it.
I would have thought D&D had been the worlds most popular roleplaying game for most if not all of the previous 20+ years prior to the OGL.
The OGL as it applies to the 3.0 and 3.5 system did a lot for the game ( I would say it was positive, not all would agree) but it isn't required to make an enjoyable or popular game. In fact as virtually no other rpg system uses an OGL ( to the bet of my knowledge ) I would say it was a transformative marketing event but doesn't really effect the game system.
I do agree that 3.5 is the best system and I suspect they will be alert to that when designing the new game. I hope they have a permissive license because there are plenty of great 3PP out there. But if they don't they could still make a great game.
And TSR was Bankrupt.
Up until the 90's they had no real competition. When competition came, TSR was going under.

ghettowedge |

I'm sorry, but what? I can't count the number of DM's that have said "core only" in regards to any version of the 3.x system (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, etc...). It took a while, but I learned to say anything was on a case by case basis. And I stopped buying most 3rd party material after Traps and Treachery 2.
While I think the OGL was good for the industry, I don't think it's what made the game popular. Some talent was developed thanks to Dragon and Dungeon, but I don't think too many people are looking to find the authors of those little pamphlet sized adventures that came out during 3.0.
I think the OGL was a greater benefit to Paizo than any other company, but I also think they benefited from being an official WotC product for a few years and building a reputation before they went their own way. They gained from trying out a lot of authors and picking through the dregs. Then they were able to build a relationship with the writers that had potential, all the while building a familiarity with a very complicated ruleset.
I'm sure that WotC gained from that as well, but the fact that their main competitor in RPG sales came about due to the OGL won't escape their notice. I doubt any company will be quick to create a legal document that allows for direct competition in the future. I don't think the OGL made D&D the brand name it is, and I don't think they'll go OGL again.
I think 3rd edition with its familiar yet cleaned up rules, as compared with 1st and 2nd edition, was what boosted 3rd edition sales. And putting a lot more choices in the players hands made it more popular. Look at the number of campaigns that made it to 20th level under 3.x rules versus those under previous editions. The OGL may have helped support that with further play options, especially adventure paths, but I'm not sure they were the reason. I think there were more player incentives to continue campaigns (breakout levels anyone?).
Where 4e failed (btw, I play 4e) seems to have been a combination of jumping the gun, poor marketing and the internet.
1. Jumping the gun - If Paizo has proven anything, it's that there were still more ways to go with 3.x. It wasn't dead. A lot of players had dumped a lot of money into 3.x books and they weren't ready to have those books become obselete. Moving onto 4e would make them obselete, while Pathfinder would be expanding on them. Which side gets the money?
2. - Poor marketing - No secret there, a lot of folks felt like WotC's marketing strategy was "You're playing wrong, here's the right way". There was no conversion guide, just end you're campaign and start the new one. That is no incentive for some people to even test the waters.
3. - The internet - At no other time in the history of D&D edition transitions could I open my computer and hear what so many other thought so fast. If you search "D&D 4e" how many results before an obviously negative review (with Yahoo search it's 4). So, if somebody "feels" something about 4e (and I say "feels" because a lot of the complaints about 4e come down to "it doesn't feel like D&D") for the first time ever the entire world can agree or disagree. When I started playing 3rd I had grognards that complained about stuff, but they didn't blog about it.
I currently play both 3.x and 4e, and I'll be trying out 5e. My players think my games are fun, though none are without faults (I hate save or suck in 3.x and I hate "I use Power Name!" in 4e for starters), but they are both fun. Someday, there will be a system that gives me the best of both.

![]() |

I'm sorry, but what? I can't count the number of DM's that have said "core only" in regards to any version of the 3.x system (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, etc...). It took a while, but I learned to say anything was on a case by case basis. And I stopped buying most 3rd party material after Traps and Treachery 2.
Core is how you start. When you got a new player in the internet age you didn't give them a list of books to buy, you sent them to the SRD.
Then when they learned the game and wanted more options they bought the splatbooks and/or the setting books depending on what type of player they were.
The DMs bought the modules. Now new DM's (and DM's who want to have someone else run so they can play for a change) buy the AP's.
Without the OGL a new player is forced to make an initial investment, or someone with the book is forced to share.
As to the self published, pamphlet sized adventures...have you read James Jacobs talking about his self published stuff that became large chunks of Golarion?
The fact you don't buy 3PP is why it is win win for the "big" publisher on the block as long as they keep putting out quality products in a hit or miss sea. If someone does put out a quality self publish, you hired them to do freelance for you.
Every decent system has a complexity that is an impediment to entry. When you add a cost to that complexity, you can raise the bar of entry to the point where new players aren't interested. If you lower the complexity, the replay value of the system suffers and people don't play as often.
The OGL allows you to give people a free taste on the front end that will make them want to buy more, and to keep people playing by assuring there is a ton of material out there if you want to try a "side game" to mix it up.
4E tried to lower the bar for entry and make being a GM easier, but it increased the cost of entry for both significantly.
I can run a Pathfinder game right now, with pretty much all the rules, for free. I buy the rule books because I like having them at the table for any number of reasons, but I don't need them.
And Paizo is fine with that, because as you see next to my name I'm also a subscriber to the Adventure Paths, as it is valuable to have someone else do all the work of writing up an adventure for me to modify as I wish for my game. And when I run that AP, I will have to buy another one. If I want to be a player, I can't read it at all. My wife currently has Jade Regent, which is driving me crazy as I pay for a product every month I can't read.
4E made an "easy" to play and run system that hard for new players to get in without putting down money first. Then they made it hard for outside writers to write for it, meaning the options were more limited.
Fail all around. We'll see if they learned a lesson, but I'm not optimistic.
The first test will be if it is a truly open playtest or a subscriber only money grab. I am betting on the later.

Werecorpse |

You seem to be saying that having digital access to the rules ( the srd) is the key, not the OGL
But 4 e does that don't they for between $6 and $10 a month. Hardly prohibitive if you just want a taste. And I understand they have quick start rules for free.
Your suggestion that Wotc could design a brilliant system that addresses all concerns but it won't matter without support seems a bit unlikely.
If they design a brilliant system, then even without 3pp support they will have a brilliant system - and that would be awesome.
I think ghettowedge has it pretty much right.
And pre 1990 there were plenty of other RPGs around.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

You seem to be saying that having digital access to the rules ( the srd) is the key, not the OGL
But 4 e does that don't they for between $6 and $10 a month. Hardly prohibitive if you just want a taste. And I understand they have quick start rules for free.
Your suggestion that Wotc could design a brilliant system that addresses all concerns but it won't matter without support seems a bit unlikely.
If they design a brilliant system, then even without 3pp support they will have a brilliant system - and that would be awesome.
I think ghettowedge has it pretty much right.
And pre 1990 there were plenty of other RPGs around.
No I am saying a free entry level SRD is a key, but the freelance issue is the far greater problem.
Having free access to the core rules is key in the here and now where when you are making game choices you have the entire internet at your disposal. If you don't need to pay $6 to $10 dollars, why would you? When making entertainment choices, tabletop gaming isn't first on most people's list of things to try, and if you add any entry cost you reduce the number of players.
You are thinking as a long time player with disposable income you have already set aside for gaming. You will pay for a WoTC sight unseen based on reputation.
Many won't. Particularly now.
And then, if the system is good but they have made it so freelancers have no reason to work with the system outside of specific contracts, freelancers will be investing non-contract time and energy into project for another system that will allow them to self publish.
Pre-90's is pre-internet. Go back and look at how bad the art is in those publications. What they were putting out then was worse than most 3PP today, but they were the only real viable option you could purchase in your local bookstore. If you lived in a city, you may have a FLGS, but the reason we all call it D&D was it was the only game you could find players for.
In the 90's TSR went bankrupt. You can't pretend that was a viable model going forward.
Monte Cook nailed it. 3.0 being a success wasn't a forgone conclusion, many thought tabletop gaming was dying.
The OGL brought new people in who were all learning the basics of a single shared rule system. It transferred the cost of RnD for writers to the free market, and it created a market where players were playing more often with all of the option on the table.
The exact opposite of what happened with 4E, where it came in like a lion and is fading out like a lamb.

doctor_wu |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

You seem to be saying that having digital access to the rules ( the srd) is the key, not the OGL
But 4 e does that don't they for between $6 and $10 a month. Hardly prohibitive if you just want a taste. And I understand they have quick start rules for free.
Your suggestion that Wotc could design a brilliant system that addresses all concerns but it won't matter without support seems a bit unlikely.
If they design a brilliant system, then even without 3pp support they will have a brilliant system - and that would be awesome.
I think ghettowedge has it pretty much right.
And pre 1990 there were plenty of other RPGs around.
The pay by month is what I don't like for digital access to the rules. I want to have my things for as long as I want them and not have to pay each month. That left a bad taste in my mouth for 4th edition. After about a 9 months I could have a core rulebook for that amount of money for as long as I want it. And if I go on to something else I can come back to it if I have the books. Can't you buy the core rulebook pdf for $10.

![]() |

The pay by month is what I don't like for digital access to the rules. I want to have my things for as long as I want them and not have to pay each month. That left a bad taste in my mouth for 4th edition. After about a 9 months I could have a core rulebook for that amount of money for as long as I want it. And if I go on to something else I can come back to it if I have the books. Can't you buy the core rulebook pdf for $10.
Not only that, most of it is in the SRD.
The OGL model is grow the game and we'll make money on the volume of players.
The WoTC model seems to be more revenue per customer focused.

pres man |

I will say I totally support the idea of an SRD type of free access is very important. I've only ever played a single session of 4e, at a local con, mainly because there wasn't a nice free way for me to look over the game. This is something I give props to Paizo for, putting out their PRD (I would prefer it if they would make as easily downloadable as WotC did with the 3.5 SRD). When someone asked if me and my wife would be willing to join their PF game, I was willing to because I could just use the PRD (3.5 is my preferred game system and I don't think PF gives me anything I feel I need and lots I don't).
I would point out that it is not absolutely required to have an OGL in order to have a free access to the rules. While those two tend to go together, they are not required to.

Legendarius |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I might be in the minority for saying this, but I don't believe that WotC will succeed or fail with 5E based on whether or not they have an open license of the game. I know if the products they produce are ones I like then I'll buy them and if they aren't I won't. It's only been about 10 years now but as many people will I think agree there was a glut of d20 product produced that was weak to be generous.
WotC could certainly offer a closed license to certain premium third parties, possibly free of charge, and have some great products made for the new version of the game. I think we all can agree there are some great content producers out there like Paizo, Kenzer, Green Ronin and Fantasy Flight Games who set the standard for quality in this hobby and would be great to have on the team.
I do think the idea of having the basic rules of the game (not necessarily the finished rule books with art, layout, etc.) available free of charge in PDF or a browsable SRD format is a good idea and aids play.
I don't think they are unreasonable to ask for people to subscribe to a service to provide online tools and content, in particular if they make the effort to keep the tools current and provide new features and tools to as many platforms as possible.
Me, I'm hoping they make a great game above all else, regardless of how open or closed the brand and the system are.
L

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Personally, I think OGL allows the internet savy gamer to feel more a 'part of it'
Look at some (most?) of the 3PP here. Gamers, who want to share their work as well as (more than?) make a profit. Sure you could hunt down the 'netbook of sex' for 2e, but the current crop of 3pp is better done and professional. I think a lot of the 3PP fit the 'ascended fanboy' meme. Same for the freelancers. (Please understand I'm not disparaging anyone here. This is meant as a positive)
Even hacks like me* can publish stuff online on our own, as long as the legalese is met. Sure in theory I could do the same for 4e, or WoD for that matter. The big difference is Donna's Dozens are perfectly legal, where Odmieniec: The Maliable isn't. It's existance online is purely at the publisher's whim.
This 'openess' has trickled down into the industry. PCGen is one clear example, but even Herolab can import new classes, items etc. and export them for others to use. That's the problem with the Digital Tools for 4x, the thrid party content that does exist can't be integrated. This excludes people from sharing their creativity through the electronic medium.
*

Terquem |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even before the invention of electricity, back around 1989 or so, what some people call the inter nets, we had open source srd's.
That's what you call it now, right. We called it, "one guy buys the rules and six friends share the book at one table". My first copy of the blue book was so hammered I photo copied it so we could keep playing. I still have that photo copy, but had to buy a new copy of the Blue book in 1993. So yeah, we were sharing, we were always sharing. It's called a social game for a reason.

Jerry Wright 307 |
I don't think there will be much need to worry about the OGL as far as 3PP's are concerned. As has been amply demonstrated by the OSR, the OGL can be used to produce content for ANY version of the system. What the OGL would mean for WotC, if they put 5E under it without reservation, is that it would enable 3PP's to reproduce the core rulebooks in toto, in a new format. (Like Mongoose did with its pocket editions of 3.5.)
I can't blame WotC for wanting to avoid that. When you walk into a game shop and see the core rulebooks sitting in their cardboard stand, plastered with their ridiculously expensive artwork and view the price tag, while the store has placed a 3PP's version of the rules in a display right beside it for a considerably lower price, you might feel the pinch in your wallet, and WotC has lost a sale.
This actually happened in front of me when I walked into an FLGS back before 4E was a glimmer in WotC's eye. A new player snatched up Mongoose's editions, bragging to his friend that he saved enough to get a copy of BESM in the bargain.
I feel the OGL was the best thing to happen to WotC and gaming since Gygax, but you have to rein things in at some point.

![]() |
Even before the invention of electricity, back around 1989 or so, what some people call the inter nets, we had open source srd's.
That's what you call it now, right. We called it, "one guy buys the rules and six friends share the book at one table". My first copy of the blue book was so hammered I photo copied it so we could keep playing. I still have that photo copy, but had to buy a new copy of the Blue book in 1993. So yeah, we were sharing, we were always sharing. It's called a social game for a reason.
The industry had a different word for that activity. What was it? Oh, now I know... Piracy.

Jerry Wright 307 |
The industry had a different word for that activity. What was it? Oh, now I know... Piracy.
Actually, in those days, the copyright laws were such that making photocopies of material for personal use wasn't illegal. Selling it was required for real piracy.
Now, with SOPA hysteria and people trying to smash the internet's freedoms, things have changed a bit. :)

ruemere |
NOTE: This is not about piracy. This is about essence of OGL.
This is a very relevant piece by Neil Gaiman:
"How Neil Gaiman Went From Fearing 'Piracy' To Believing It's 'An Incredibly Good Thing'"
Probably the most relevant part of the video
The essence of OGL is that it is possible to build a community and a market upon a common and easily available standard. If a publisher can ride the wave of popularity, they can find their own place on the market. The downside is, obviously, that there are no favorites and publishers unable to compete will fade into obscurity.
Personally, I want OGL to stay. And I want all the 3rd party publishers to stay, too. Most of the great books I have came from them.
Note: as Pathfinder became the mainstream and baseline system of d20, Paizo should be no longer considered a third party publisher.
If the WotC want to join the party, they are more than welcome to do so. However if they insist on building their own playground again, I wish them best of luck on the other side of the fence.
Regards,
Ruemere

![]() |

Considering their current stance on piracy I would be very surprised if they offer their rules online digitally for free. It would not surprise me if they do what more and more computer game companies are doing. Eihter opening something like a Steam accunt or having to register it online as well as having an internet connection at all times. I don't understand the complaint about having to pay for the rules either. It's not like they said the rules were free then added hidden fees to make you pay. Why even pay to get the rules if your against paying for them in the first place.

![]() |

Considering their current stance on piracy I would be very surprised if they offer their rules online digitally for free. It would not surprise me if they do what more and more computer game companies are doing. Eihter opening something like a Steam accunt or having to register it online as well as having an internet connection at all times. I don't understand the complaint about having to pay for the rules either. It's not like they said the rules were free then added hidden fees to make you pay. Why even pay to get the rules if your against paying for them in the first place.
I think you are missing the larger point.
Having a market based on selling rules only basically means you will have to write new rules every few years to get people to buy new books.
If you make your money on modules and settings, those will need replacement and updating more frequently.
If you make your rules free, more people will get into playing the game. Many of those people will also buy rulebooks, as they have a value aside and apart from the rules in them. What you lose from the people who are only use the free version you will more than make up by the volume of people you bring into the game who will buy modules, setting books, and eventually even rulebooks.
Many people I know who have spent a good deal of money on books would never have gotten into into the game in the first place if they couldn't have first read the rules for free online.
But the real long term money comes from modules and settings. And who writes those?
Freelancers.
And how do you find people who are not just good at writing adventures, but good at writing adventures for your rule setting?
You scan the 3PP market for talent and hire people who are self-publishing quality material.
Only if your license is restrictive, they can't. So they are not writing in your rule system normally. They are writing in your competitors open system. So they are better at writing for them than for you.
And new players now look around and see a system they can start playing for free that has more, better support material and...well...you know the story of 4E.

Jerry Wright 307 |
I repeat: the OGL as it stands, allows for 5E content to be produced by 3PP.
Ciretose, you seem to feel that the 5E rules must be released under the OGL in order for this to happen. But they do not. The only thing that is hindered by not putting 5E under the OGL is content that specifically uses material designated as IP. You can make 5e-compatible modules to your heart's content using the OGL. Nothing will stop you.

![]() |

I repeat: the OGL as it stands, allows for 5E content to be produced by 3PP.
Ciretose, you seem to feel that the 5E rules must be released under the OGL in order for this to happen. But they do not. The only thing that is hindered by not putting 5E under the OGL is content that specifically uses material designated as IP. You can make 5e-compatible modules to your heart's content using the OGL. Nothing will stop you.
The OGL does.
The GSL does not.
Read this.
The original OGL had a “poison pill” provision that states a person or company who wishes to produce 4e-compatible content under the GSL may not also publish any open gaming content under the OGL. While the new one is improved, it still has a number of provisions that would leave you up for litigation and subject to a cease an desist by WoTC at any time for whatever reason.
There is a reason all of the major 3PP stayed OGL and didn't agree to the GSL.

![]() |

Lots of good points in responding to my last post
I do get the point. I would love to see them release an OGL amnd many 3PP thrive. It's just that I doubt that Wotc wants to create their competition again. Beyond a handful of pther rpg companies most of them have not embraced an OGL type of license because they don't want to cretea a competitor. It may not be the smartest or fairest strategy yet I can understand it. As for the rules they should be free yet I cannot see Wotc losing a potential stream of revenue. And why should they. It's not exactly that expensive to get a DDI account. I just think you have a very overly optimisitc view of the OGL. It's not a bad thing yet it's also not that good of a thing either.

![]() |

I don't think a full SRD online for free is necessary for people to be able to try before they buy. A quick start game distributed for free is often enough to get a feel for whether you like a game, and many companies do that (from Shadowrun to M&M to Kerberos Club FATE Edition).
And in case people aren't aware, WotC has a free quick start for 4e available as well though I must admit its hard to find on their site:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/TryDnD.aspx
That page has PDF copies of 27 page Quick Start Rules and the updated & improved Keep on the Shadowfell scenario along with Khyber's Harvest the Free RPG Day 2009 product.
Hopefully WotC will at least do a quick start for 5e, maybe even give away the core game (i.e. what I imagine will be the first few chapters in the core book) and let the promise of rules modules and options entice people to buy the book.
Alternatively they could do what Mongoose have done with Legend and sell the core book PDF for just $1 :)

Elton |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

ciretose wrote:Lots of good points in responding to my last postI do get the point. I would love to see them release an OGL amnd many 3PP thrive. It's just that I doubt that Wotc wants to create their competition again. Beyond a handful of pther rpg companies most of them have not embraced an OGL type of license because they don't want to cretea a competitor. It may not be the smartest or fairest strategy yet I can understand it. As for the rules they should be free yet I cannot see Wotc losing a potential stream of revenue. And why should they. It's not exactly that expensive to get a DDI account. I just think you have a very overly optimisitc view of the OGL. It's not a bad thing yet it's also not that good of a thing either.
Memorax,
Would you support a monopoly? Really, would you support a monopoly?
If 5e is not Open and put under monopolous control via just copyright, it's something I'd live with. It might be great and awesome, but I wouldn't produce for it. The pipeline to produce for 5e is very narrow and you have to compete with other Freelancers to even get noticed by Wizards of the Coast.
Secondly, Wizards of the Coast acts like a gatekeeper. They only buy the manuscripts they like; therefore cutting off other potential good manuscripts from seeing the light of day. This works in 1980 or 1990, but in 2012 it's impossible.
The internet made it possible for Artists and their Audience to get together. We can bypass the Gatekeeper (in this case, WotC) and release our work for those who would buy them. What the OGL does is that it allows WotC to publish what it likes and allows other artists to publish what they see in their head without going to WotC. The gatekeeper becomes just another provider in a community of artists and audiences.
Take that away, and you get unhappy artists who want their stuff published, yet they have to go through WotC again. WotC will always publish what it likes (unfortunately, the majority trusts WotC's publications than 3pp).
Take away the OGL, and a lot of Artists will be unable to release their work to you, and you will have to go to Wizards of the Coast to get your D&D Content. It may or not be what you want, and what you get may give you ideas for your own stuff. But your work will never see an audience unless it gets past Wizards of the Coast.
That's why we need an OGL for 5th Edition, Memorax. We need it so that we won't have to convince Wizards of the Coast that our Work is the work they want to publish. We can publish it ourselves.

Shadrayl of the Mountain |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

It wouldn't be a monopoly when they have control only over their own product and IP. There would still be White Wolf, Pathfinder, etc... All other RPGs would have to disappear for them to have a monopoly.
I think all they need to do is make it easy to produce content for 5E- it doesn't need to be a full-blown OGL again. The OGL allowed for stupid things such as Mongoose's hack reprinting of the core books in a smaller format. (A really dirty move on their part, IMO) It also allowed for the 'alternate player's handbook' phenomenon- which I think they don't want to see again.
I think any new license will allow easy printing of modules and accessories, but not replacements for the core books. And that's the way I think it should be.
I think if they made a free quick-start version of the rules and a cheap ($10 or less) pdf version of the full rules, then they would have a good set-up for potential success.

![]() |

Would you support a monopoly? Really, would you support a monopoly?
I don't like monopolies yet sometimes they occur in business. Wotc is not the only one to do so. Microsoft has close to a monopoly as one can get with Windows. Is their other OS on the market yes. By and large most PCs imo is Windows. If they can create an OGL without the possibility of creating a competior I'm all for it. Even then before 3E TSR had no OGL and people still bought from them
If 5e is not Open and put under monopolous control via just copyright, it's something I'd live with. It might be great and awesome, but I wouldn't produce for it. The pipeline to produce for 5e is very narrow and you have to compete with other Freelancers to even get noticed by Wizards of the Coast.
I get what you are saying yet many other rpg companies without an OGL do the same. Freelancers have to compete for attention by writing manuscripts that catch they eye. The OGL is not standard in the rest of the industry. Unless one plans to write only for Wotc and D&D in general it's like a job intereview. A bunch of people competing for the same job only one is picked.
Secondly, Wizards of the Coast acts like a gatekeeper. They only buy the manuscripts they like; therefore cutting off other potential good manuscripts from seeing the light of day. This works in 1980 or 1990, but in 2012 it's impossible.
Wotc and pretty much every other company that is given something someone thinks they should sell. Of course they are going to take what they like. Why would they take anything and everything so that they end up losing money. Someone can come up with a D&D cookbook and it can be the best written cookbook yet if it's not going to sell well there will be no interest. I work in the book industry. Do you know how often we get people trying to sell their book. "It's the best book". We are fools for not carrying it". "Yo going to make a ton of money if you carry my book" etc. Everybody thinks they are selling you the the best product. That's easy to say when it's not your money finacing the product.
It's always been like that. When you solict a product from someone you as the person who is going to sell the product want the best quality product that will sell well. I'm even surprised you think it's a bad thing. If I asked you and 9 other people to write me a mauscript why the hell would I not want to use the one that will give me the most return on my investment. Why would I pay someone for cappy product let alone choose one to sell. With respect you come across as very naive in terms of how business works.
The internet made it possible for Artists and their Audience to get together. We can bypass the Gatekeeper (in this case, WotC) and release our work for those who would buy them. What the OGL does is that it allows WotC to publish what it likes and allows other artists to publish what they see in their head without going to WotC. The gatekeeper becomes just another provider in a community of artists and audiences.
Good point. Yet I will also point out that if it was such a great thing why has the industry as a whole not embraced the OGL concept. It's because while it's a good thing to support other writers and artits you don't want them becoming your competition and taking money away from the main company. It's all nice to see look at the little guy and within reason we should. Yet neither should we say provide me with an OGL at the cost of making me your competitor and who cares if you lose business. rpg have always been very closed source as opposed to open source. It's only with the OGL that perception has changed. I'm in favor of an OGL. Not at the cost of seeing Wotc lose money again which would force them to release a 6E.
Take away the OGL, and a lot of Artists will be unable to release their work to you, and you will have to go to Wizards of the Coast to get your D&D Content. It may or not be what you want, and what you get may give you ideas for your own stuff. But your work will never see an audience unless it gets past Wizards of the Coast.
Why are you acting like the rpg industry has not been like this up until the OGL. Until then it was the cost of doing business. Sometimes business is not fair. Sometimes it does not work to the ltlle guy advantage. I don't like it but what are you going to do. The book company I work for controls 90% of the book industry in canada. Unless your book is well written and sells well we are not going to carry it becuase we should be giving chances to an untested writer. That path leads to a loss of revenue and potential bankruptcy. I get what you are saying yet you want to have your cake and eat it too while having Wotc foot the bill for a lifetime supply of cake.
That's why we need an OGL for 5th Edition, Memorax. We need it so that we won't have to convince Wizards of the Coast that our Work is the work they want to publish. We can publish it ourselves.
Normally I would agree yet if your product is not going to sell well an OGL is not going to guarantee Wotc pays attention. Unless your product sells well, consistently all the time they are not going to pay attnetion to you. Once again I like the OGL as long as it's no risk to Wotc. Note I am not a Wotc fanboy. I just don't want to have to go through another edition change because of poor sales due to someone becoming another Paizo.

![]() |

Here's another question. What would happen if money was no longer a factor in our economy? Perhaps everyone was encouraged to share what they make. Would you still feel that way?
In a perfect world money would not be needed in our imperfect world we still need it. For better or worse were stuck wit money and people will want to be paid. Companies invest in people and things that will bring more profit. Maybe I'm getting old and jaded. Who knows. Still not the thread to have a tangent about philosphical discussions about money, entitlement and why the world is unfair.

![]() |

That's why we need an OGL for 5th Edition, Memorax. We need it so that we won't have to convince Wizards of the Coast that our Work is the work they want to publish. We can publish it ourselves.
My experience of the OGL market has not been positive. WotC's experience of the OGL wasn't positive either, as it fostered competition for them. There may be some licencing deal for some 3PP players but in the end WotC want to protect their IP, market and profits. In the end, I don't think the OGL really did that for them - if it did, why did they change it? They are a profit maximising company in a declining industry - helping other talent will not be a priority for them, especially if it diultes their own brand and bites them on the arse.

Yora |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

WoTC's genius in 2000 when they created the OGL was what made them "The World's Most Popular Role Playing Game."
Who is left from those times? Monte? And only because he was hired to come back.
Take a look at the known members of the 5th Edition design team:
Mike Mearls: Iron HerosMonte Cook: Arcana Evolved, Ptolus
Bruce Cordell: Hyperconscious
Jeremy Crawford: Blue Rose
Rodney Tompson: Star Wars Saga (published by WotC, but same Idea)
I think whoever recruited that team had the same idea as you.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another question. What would happen if money was no longer a factor in our economy? Perhaps everyone was encouraged to share what they make. Would you still feel that way?
Since we don't live in the world of Star Trek the Next Generation, it's an irrelevant question. Given that "Money's been Talking ever since we started Walking." that's not a condition that's going to change in our lifetimes.

![]() |

ciretose wrote:WoTC's genius in 2000 when they created the OGL was what made them "The World's Most Popular Role Playing Game."
Who is left from those times? Monte? And only because he was hired to come back.
Take a look at the known members of the 5th Edition design team:
Mike Mearls: Iron Heros
Monte Cook: Arcana Evolved, Ptolus
Bruce Cordell: Hyperconscious
Jeremy Crawford: Blue Rose
Rodney Tompson: Star Wars Saga (published by WotC, but same Idea)I think whoever recruited that team had the same idea as you.
At least two of them (Cook and Cordell) made their names pre-3e so suggesting they are there solely because of their OGL credentials is probably misleading. Jeremy Crawford and Blue Rose I've never heard of, so only Mearls really seems to be a well-known product of the OGL.

Bluenose |
At least two of them (Cook and Cordell) made their names pre-3e so suggesting they are there solely because of their OGL credentials is probably misleading. Jeremy Crawford and Blue Rose I've never heard of, so only Mearls really seems to be a well-known product of the OGL.
Blue Rose is/was a Green Ronin D20 product. In many ways a predecessor to True 20 in style at least, with three generic classes. Rules Compendium and GM Kit for 4e are partly his work.

pres man |

I had considered that WotC might give specific licenses to other companies to put out content, but the more I think about it, I'm not convinced that is a good idea.
Here is why, if at some point in the future WotC decides not to continue to allow that other company to produce that material, then WotC is going to be demonized as "stealing the material back". I mean just look at what has happened to Dragon and Dungeon. They licensed Paizo to put out the material, they even extended the license so that Paizo could finish their last adventure path in Dungeon, and what did WotC get for their efforts from the fan-base? "WotC ripped the magazines away from Paizo!"
It doesn't matter how inaccurate that interpretation is, it is how it felt to many and thus it was "true" in their mind. Frankly, if I was WotC I would be seriously hesitant to put the company in that situation again.

Chuck Wright Frog God Games |

They licensed Paizo to put out the material, they even extended the license so that Paizo could finish their last adventure path in Dungeon, and what did WotC get for their efforts from the fan-base? "WotC ripped the magazines away from Paizo!"
They also killed it as a print product. It's my contention that making it a digital-only product is what caused the backlash. Not revoking the license.

![]() |

Here is why, if at some point in the future WotC decides not to continue to allow that other company to produce that material, then WotC is going to be demonized as "stealing the material back". I mean just look at what has happened to Dragon and Dungeon. They licensed Paizo to put out the material, they even extended the license so that Paizo could finish their last adventure path in Dungeon, and what did WotC get for their efforts from the fan-base? "WotC ripped the magazines away from Paizo!"
It doesn't matter how inaccurate that interpretation is, it is how it felt to many and thus it was "true" in their mind. Frankly, if I was WotC I would be seriously hesitant to put the company in that situation again.
You have a good point in my opinion.
You forgot something though :
When WOTC dropped DRAGON and DUNGEON and gave them to Paizo, I was initially VERY disppointed. WTF, they just dropped the ball and gave an unknown company my preciousssss ?
I read the first Paizo copy with a negative mindset. The very first website here was not my cup of tea either.
Then ... after a while, I realized I really liked what was going on. But that was a good surprise after a really, really, bad initial reaction.
Add to this whatever we don't need to repeat about WOTC. (And my perception of it).
When they dropped the ball a second time, that was the one time too many.

![]() |

I had considered that WotC might give specific licenses to other companies to put out content, but the more I think about it, I'm not convinced that is a good idea.
Here is why, if at some point in the future WotC decides not to continue to allow that other company to produce that material, then WotC is going to be demonized as "stealing the material back". I mean just look at what has happened to Dragon and Dungeon. They licensed Paizo to put out the material, they even extended the license so that Paizo could finish their last adventure path in Dungeon, and what did WotC get for their efforts from the fan-base? "WotC ripped the magazines away from Paizo!"
It doesn't matter how inaccurate that interpretation is, it is how it felt to many and thus it was "true" in their mind. Frankly, if I was WotC I would be seriously hesitant to put the company in that situation again.
I don't really agree. When you see all the sound and fury about 4e, hardly anyone mentions the magazines - I don't think many people who make a big deal of it were even around on Paizo at the time. I was, and I was annoyed about it, but it didn't stop me picking up 4e. And since WotC didn't treat Paizo badly, and are demonised anyway, I don't think it is likely to change entrenched mindsets anyway - WotC are already considered the spawn of the Horn-ed One by those who are inclined to feel that way.

Readerbreeder |

Elton wrote:Since we don't live in the world of Star Trek the Next Generation...Here's another question. What would happen if money was no longer a factor in our economy? Perhaps everyone was encouraged to share what they make. Would you still feel that way?
Funny, ST:NG was the first thing I thought of when seeing that statement, as well. I think Elton is actually Jean-Luc Picard in disguise.

Elton |

Elton wrote:That's why we need an OGL for 5th Edition, Memorax. We need it so that we won't have to convince Wizards of the Coast that our Work is the work they want to publish. We can publish it ourselves.My experience of the OGL market has not been positive. WotC's experience of the OGL wasn't positive either, as it fostered competition for them. There may be some licencing deal for some 3PP players but in the end WotC want to protect their IP, market and profits. In the end, I don't think the OGL really did that for them - if it did, why did they change it? They are a profit maximising company in a declining industry - helping other talent will not be a priority for them, especially if it diultes their own brand and bites them on the arse.
So you think Competition is evil for Wizards of the Coast? Apparently it's not. It's making them innovate the rules again. If it was bad for Wizards of the Coast, they would have passed into the dark by now. A company's purpose is to make money right? Competition helps the company make money by giving them incentive to innovate.
Competition is good, Aubrey. Look at what is happening with the new 5e announcement? They have to innovate to keep up with their competition. In my personal opinion, cooperation is a lot better for Wizards of the Coast. But Competition with Paizo is good for Wizards of the Coast because it's making them look at their whole business model.
5e is good for the market, just as Paizo is good for the market. IF you are having a bad experience with the OGL, though, perhaps you should look at what would have happened if there was no OGL. No Stargate RPG, no Pathfinder, no Ptolus setting book, no Mutants and Masterminds. I see positive things with the OGL. So it's all a matter of perspective.
There are four freedoms of Culture. Since the D&D rules is part of our culture, it falls under these four freedoms:
1. The freedom to view, hear, read, or otherwise attend to the Work;
2. The freedom to study, analyze, and dissect copies of the Work, and adapt it to your needs;
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor;
4. The freedom to improve the Work, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
The OGL makes possible the freedom to Improve the Work, and release your improvements to the public, so the D&D community benefits as a whole. Copyright takes away freedom 2, 3, and 4. The OGL facilitates Freedoms 2, 3 and 4.
Suppose (and yes, I am seriously considering it) I release my City of Psionics under the Creative Commons license as well as the OGL. That would give PAIZO incentive to take my City and put it in Golarion. They won't have to pay me royalties but they can give me serious competition. The setting can be improved to their standards, they can release new art for it, and they have an official psionics setting in Golarion. They don't have to do anything in house, they just redress the PDF and change a few items and it's ready to go.
My work, and by proxy me, be able to reach a whole other audience that way. People who just buy pathfinder books because they are loyal to the 1st party. I'd have serious competition, but at least my city will live. My work will live, and it will be in the hands of people who love to buy just official Pathfinder products.
The OGL ensures that D&D lives in some form. That gives Wizards of the Coast a strong benefit. Those people who work for Wizards of the Coast that released work in the OGL will have their work live in the hearts and minds of many people.
Overtime, D&D has grown beyond Wizards of the Coast's control thanks to the OGL. But Wizards of the Coast benefited from it. They won't have to license many properties to write games because of the OGL. Sure, the Brand is diluted, but the game hasn't been. But is this all about Brand loyalty?
Aubrey, brands have limited shelf space. They are mortal things. They die in 50 to 75 years. D&D as brand will die, but thanks to the OGL, the rules live. The OGL is good. If Wizards does this right, there will be a 6th Edition, but if they do it wrong, 5th Edition will be the last version of D&D you will buy. And that is a good thing, because Brands have limited shelf space. If Wizards or Pathfinder pass away, what will stop you from gaming? IF D&D passes away, what will stop you from playing the game?

![]() |

The thing is Elton were seeing a 5E becuase they lost profit and fans to Pathfinder and Paizo. If we would not have had Paizo or PF something tells me 4E would still be around. Take a look at 2E even when many of TSr products were imo utter garbage gamers still bought them because no one else was able to sell them. It's easy to say well with an OGL it forces them to innovate and release a better product and for someone like Wotc with access to a lot of money they can. The little guy with the small profit margin and not so easy access to money to innovate gets left behind.
Competition as long as it does not run the risk of someone going out of business is good. Competiiton for the sake of competion imo not so much. For every Stargate, M&M and other good D20 product you had a horde of imo badly written products. That's another problem if you have competition how can you be sure of the quality of your competiots product using your license. One can't whic leads to what happened with 3.5 which was the D20 glut of products that remained on shelves.
I respect and get what you are trying to promote with your four freedoms of Culture. It's just comes acrosss as being very naive and not tking into account the way business work. Business is not fair, it's not equal and it does not owe anyone anything. What you desire imo works in a perfect world. Where companies should lose money, and potential buyers so that someone else should do the same. and that's not going to happen. At the very least if Wotc does do an OGL it should and will be more restrictive.
While it would a good thing for you if Paizo did use your product as an offical product it would surprise me if they did. First their works take precedance over yours. If say for example James Jacobs has an idea for what to do with an official psionics setting for Galorian he will use his ideas first then maybe yours.
Donlt kid yoruself it's all about brand loyalty. Why do you think whenever someone creates a new product they make sure it's not similar or different enough that whomever has an existing product cannot sue. If someone made a soft drink very simlar to Coke you don't think Coca-Cola will not scrutinize it very closely. Coca-cola wants you to buy only soft drinks from them and no one else. Same thing with Pepsi. The book company I work for sure as hell does not want me to recommend another competitor. I do because one way or the other if we don't have the book the ywill look elsewhere yet it's not standard policy to do and I want customers to buy only from us otherwise I'm out of a job.
Elton you have a great vision. Unfortunatrly it's not a very realsitc one imo. You want an OGL that allwos you to everything and anything. Create as much competition as can be created while not taking into account what could happen to existing rpg companies. Your assuming it will be good. I don't think it will.

Elton |

Sure, it's all about brand loyalty, but brands have limited shelf space. They are mortal concepts, they die out eventually.
Competition is good for Wizards of the Coast, Memorax. Sure, monopolous behavior comes across everyone's mind. My own father wants to patent his ideas because he's afraid of Competition.
Supporting a company because you want them to squash their competition, or demonizing choices that they've made in the past (sharing the D&D rules through the OGL instead of stealing them back), is backward thinking.
The OGL was a good thing. Face facts. 4e was a good thing for Wizards to do. And now 5e is a good direction they are taking it. But you shouldn't demonize past choices. It's water under the bridge. It happened in the past, and they have taken the consequences both Good and Bad. Stop focusing on the Bad Consequences and take a look at how the OGL would be good for 5e.
If you want Wizards to fully copyright the game, then go ahead. It doesn't matter to me one bit. I'll still write for Pathfinder/3.x. I can still use the open content of the rules to write what I like. We are just saying that the rules for 5th edition, no matter what direction they take it in, will not gain a lot of Freelancer support. In a post OGL-world, a copyrighted game like 5e will stagnate and die because not a lot of content will be produced for it.
Paizo comes out on top because they compete in other ways with Wizards with a different business model. They have 3rd Party Publisher support, they have a "staff" of reviewers like Dark Mistress.
To compete, Wizards would have to have a similar business model. They need 3rd party publisher support, praise the 3rd party publishers they like, and have a "staff" of reviewers to review such products.
Wizards has let the genie out of the bottle back in 2000, you are saying it's bad because they lost money. Well, face facts, losing money on the D&D Brand has nothing to do with Paizo, or 3rd Party published crap. It has to do with recent choices they made back in the mid-early 21st Century.
* No more updating the d20 SRD.
* Little 3rd Party support for present publishers.
* Creating an entirely new game the world wasn't ready for (the world wasn't ready for 4e, at large. Although I think M&M 3rd Edition has the Character Creation rules that 4e needed to be truly great in my opinion).
* Acting as though it was out of touch from the rest of the community. The GSL was a big sign to me that they wanted D&D 4e all to themselves. Well, if they wanted it all to themselves, I just didn't buy it.
However, my cousin gave me his copies of the 4e books and I picked up a 4e Essentials book and the 4e Eberron book and gave it a try. My cousin took back his books and now I am 4e less, and I'm not running the game again. Go figure.
Brand loyalty is a significant part, I agree. But you got to remember, it wasn't the choices the company made in 2000 that got it to where it is today. It was the choices it was making in 2005 to 2008. It's the business choices made in those 3 years that caused them to be in the position that they are in now.
All we are saying is make the same choice in 2000 in regards to 5e for 2013, and be more involved in what 3PPs are producing, and participate in that environment. It's better for the new rules, it's better for everyone all around.
If you say that it's better for Wizards not to participate in the sandbox, to stand outside and withhold their toys from the other children, then by all means, have what you want. I just won't play with their toys, no matter how good they are.
Believe me, I want them to succeed. But I'll say it with my dollars that they have no right to keep their toys to themselves anymore.

Elton |

Here are the following products I want under the OGL.
D&D 5e
All of it's splat books and hardcovers.
Things that should not be under the OGL.
* Forgotten Realms
* Eberron (Sad, but true. There is a lot I want to do with the Kalashtar outside of WotC, but it's better for everyone around if it's not)
* Dark Sun
* Ravenloft
* Greyhawk
What would happen if D&D 5e is copyrighted? I'll get a copy and probably run a BEMCI styled game with it, just to prove to myself that it will work. However, don't count on it. The OGL is a blessing.
The Era of Gatekeeping D&D has passed.

![]() |

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:Elton wrote:That's why we need an OGL for 5th Edition, Memorax. We need it so that we won't have to convince Wizards of the Coast that our Work is the work they want to publish. We can publish it ourselves.My experience of the OGL market has not been positive. WotC's experience of the OGL wasn't positive either, as it fostered competition for them. There may be some licencing deal for some 3PP players but in the end WotC want to protect their IP, market and profits. In the end, I don't think the OGL really did that for them - if it did, why did they change it? They are a profit maximising company in a declining industry - helping other talent will not be a priority for them, especially if it diultes their own brand and bites them on the arse.So you think Competition is evil for Wizards of the Coast? Apparently it's not. It's making them innovate the rules again. If it was bad for Wizards of the Coast, they would have passed into the dark by now. A company's purpose is to make money right? Competition helps the company make money by giving them incentive to innovate.
Competition is good, Aubrey. Look at what is happening with the new 5e announcement? They have to innovate to keep up with their competition. In my personal opinion, cooperation is a lot better for Wizards of the Coast. But Competition with Paizo is good for Wizards of the Coast because it's making them look at their whole business model.
5e is good for the market, just as Paizo is good for the market. IF you are having a bad experience with the OGL, though, perhaps you should look at what would have happened if there was no OGL. No Stargate RPG, no Pathfinder, no Ptolus setting book, no Mutants and Masterminds. I see positive things with the OGL. So it's all a matter of perspective.
There are four freedoms of Culture. Since the D&D rules is part of our culture, it falls under these four freedoms:
1. The freedom to view, hear, read, or otherwise attend to the...
A few comments:
Golarion is not OGL, only Pathfinder is OGL. You will not be allowed to release Golarion material on your own and Paizo will not be willing to allow random strangers to create stuff that infringes their own IP, or to incoporate that into their IP. So your City of Psionics will have to be non-Golarion to comply with the OGL and Paizo's own version of it.
Second, you don't understand how competion or innovation works at the company level, nor have you noticed that there is a difference between what is good for consumersand what is good for companies. Competition between companies is an extension of the human urge to gather resources to survive and procreate. It is a fight which continues until the participants are destroyed. This impacts upon profits, and generally the more competion the lower the profits. So companies then have a choice - reduce their costs and continue to compete, or give up. Then there is the issue of how big the market is. Right now, the TTRPG market ain't big - it was much larger in the 1980s, but has declined significantly since then. A smaller market simply supports fewer competitors.
D&D and its competitors are now operating in a much smaller market than their heydey. This, frankly, has impacted significantly on available choice, much more so that anything else including the OGL. There is now much less choice in the brave new world of the OGL than there was in the 1980s, with really only a few systems out there. D&D/d20-based systems are now dominant, much more so than before when you had RQ, Traveller, and so on. They still exist, but barely. The declining market has been much more powerful a factor.
So in a declining market, competition can be bad for companies (though still not necessarily for the consumer) as you are looking at declining profits, which also means decling levels of innovation. It is possible to argue that the OGL has even stifled competion, since it allowed companies to produce (a lot of it dross) products without having the design their own system. On the one hand, it lowered barriers to enrty in the market, increasing output. In others, it probably reduced genuine innovation in RPG design by pushing everyone up the OGL route. What's so special about 3.5e to make it the ultimate RPG? Nothing much. It's really the Windows of RPGs - a dominant product that isn't really all that good and has lots of problems, but has nevertheless succeeded at smothering a lot of the competition by providing the default operating system. But that doesn't make it good, it just makes it popular with publishers and conservative customers who dislike change.
Now, I agree that in general the increased competition is probably a good thing overall for the market. However, this is a declining market. It is perfectly understandable if WotC is not keen to foster competition by giving them free rein over its IP. Paizo was nurtured in WotC's bosom and that has now bitten them - they are therefore highly unlikely to want to repeat the experience. I also agree that the increased competition is probably stimulating WotC to better things than they necessarily might have done without it - I think they got complacent and flabby, and that they are looking much harder at what they are doing.
But WotC is about profits (and indeed so is Paizo). They are not about fostering talent in other companies, they are about killing their competition like every other business. The OGL wasn't even altruistic, it was about saving money and outsourcing support - and it didn't work.

![]() |

So a company who wants to have more profits and wants to retainthose who buy from them is backwards thinkiing. I'm glad your not running a company chances are you would run it into the ground with misguided altrusim.
What saved D&D was not the OGL it was Wotc who bought the rights and released 3E. The OGL played a small part yet it was not the sole reason. Paizo is on top because they have a great product and mainly because they are thhe only main supporters of 3.5. You do have 3PP that do yet not in the same league. If it was not Paizo then someone else who had released the same product. You had a fanbase who wanted nothing to do with 4E and wanted more 3.5 material. imo they were going to support anyone that would contiunue that. Try doing something like that with 2E D&D and see how that well that does.
Why would 5e stagante. If you have only one source who provides 5e they are the ones that reap the benefits. Thr money goes to one source not many sources.
No offence but when your telling me "Give me the OGL. Give it to me NOW! I don't care if you lose money as a comopany. I don't care if you lose fans to ther companies. Give it me or I'm not going to support you as a company". Well it's not someone I would want buying my products if I sold a product.
With respect Elton you need to take off the rose colred glasses you spray painted black and see that it's not all good with the OGL. Store owners all jumoed on the D20 bandwagon and screwed themselves by buying too much. Gamer became sick of D20 becuase it seemed everyone including their grandmothers were releasing D20 games no matter if the D20 system worked with the rpg or not. Other rpgs were shoved to the side or ingnored because of it. I'm not saying it's all bad. Yet neither is the OGL going to just be positive. No one knows if the shrinking rpg market can handle another OGL. Until then I rather not see an OGL for the sake of an OGL consquences be damned. I want this hobby to last.
Elton may I make a suggestion if you a writer a someone who plans to write going on a public forum and saying that if your not going to get you way it's the highway is a sure way not to be hired by anyone. You will get told that their are others waiting to take your place.

![]() |

A few comments:Golarion is not OGL, only Pathfinder is OGL. You will not be allowed to release Golarion material on your own and Paizo will not be willing to allow random strangers to create stuff that infringes their own IP, or to incoporate that into their IP. So your City of Psionics will have to be non-Golarion to comply with the OGL and Paizo's own version of it.
Second, you don't understand how competion or innovation works at the company level, nor have you noticed that there is a difference between what is good for consumersand what is good for companies. Competition between companies is an extension of the human urge to gather resources to survive and procreate. It is a fight which continues until the participants are destroyed. This impacts upon profits, and generally the more competion the lower the profits. So companies then have a choice - reduce their costs and continue to compete, or give up. Then there is the issue of how big the market is. Right now, the TTRPG market ain't big - it was much larger in the 1980s, but has declined significantly since then. A smaller market simply supports fewer competitors.
D&D and its competitors are now operating in a much smaller market than their heydey. This, frankly, has impacted significantly on available choice, much more so that anything else including the OGL. There is now much less choice in the brave new world of the OGL than there was in the 1980s, with really only a few systems out there. D&D/d20-based systems are now dominant, much more so than before when you had RQ, Traveller, and so on. They still exist, but barely. The declining market has been much more powerful a factor.
So in a declining market, competition can be bad for companies (though still not necessarily for the consumer) as you are looking at declining profits, which also means decling levels of innovation. It is possible to argue that the OGL has even stifled competion, since it allowed companies to produce (a lot of it dross) products without having the design their own system. On the one hand, it lowered barriers to enrty in the market, increasing output. In others, it probably reduced genuine innovation in RPG design by pushing everyone up the OGL route. What's so special about 3.5e to make it the ultimate RPG? Nothing much. It's really the Windows of RPGs - a dominant product that isn't really all that good and has lots of problems, but has nevertheless succeeded at smothering a lot of the competition by providing the default operating system. But that doesn't make it good, it just makes it popular with publishers and conservative customers who dislike change.
Now, I agree that in general the increased competition is probably a good thing overall for the market. However, this is a declining market. It is perfectly understandable if WotC is not keen to foster competition by giving them free rein over its IP. Paizo was nurtured in WotC's bosom and that has now bitten them - they are therefore highly unlikely to want to repeat the experience. I also agree that the increased competition is probably stimulating WotC to better things than they necessarily might have done without it - I think they got complacent and flabby, and that they are looking much harder at what they are doing.
But WotC is about profits (and indeed so is Paizo). They are not about fostering talent in other companies, they are about killing their competition like every other business. The OGL wasn't even altruistic, it was about saving money and outsourcing support - and it didn't work.
Agreed and seconded.