5E matters if they develop a rule set (game) that is successful, then promote the use of the rule set by third parties by providing the appropriate channels or tools. If 5E sells, then third parties will want to take advantage of it to sell their own ideas. If you want to limit yourself to OGL specific content, then you may miss out on an opportunity.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If the 5E version has some compatibility with the other versions (something that may or not be intended), then it really doesn't matter if its OGL or not.
This discussion has about reached its saturation point. I believe the OGL was good for WotC and the industry, and the GSL was bad for same, but I can't see how making 5E "completely free rules" will help anyone. WotC is trying to regain market share. They aren't going to manage it by encouraging people to use their rules for free.
Free? No, Elton goes too far with his visions. But I still find myself wondering if a 'delayed freedom' might help products.
One thing that was a balancing point WotC tried to juggle was if their suppliment books should reference anything outside the SRD. This left 'orphan classes' that never got support until the end.*
A '5e SRD' I'd think might be best served a mixture of the two. Put out elements of 'the core three' in an SRD. Wait a bit and put out the rest. Put out a 'complete gish' and six months (or however long the sales lifecycle is estimated to be) put that out as OGL
In the meantime, you've released books with closed content feats for the core classes/monsters etc. You've also release books with supliments for the 'complete gish'. Now once the 'complete gish' stuff is added to the SRD, there's a demand for the suplimental material all over again. Plus there's the 'free advertising' aspect that comes with it. The only place to find a duskblade was in a WotC adventure** With my model, I envision a 'second wave' adventure from (for example) Frog God Games, would result in a duskblade appearing in that 3PP adventure, sending the GM (and the players) to th SRD or to the books for this class, and sparking new interest in the (still) closed content from the newer books.
Of course I also wondered why WotC never used the SRD in reverse. Publish a book once a year that takes the best 3PP OGL content and puts it in a WotC hard cover. Sure unearthed Arcana was a start, but bascially you're development costs of a 'best of' book are covered. And at the very least you'll sell it to the 'zombies' who only buy 'official content'.***
*Shrug* I'm an amature writer not a businessman.
*
**
***
I am not convinced there is a problem with the current license with 4E, versus not being receptive to third party developers and earning a certain level of trust. That has more to do with the company, but having a popular game with help.
I removed a post that was either a personal attack, endorsing copyright infringement, or both.
Of course I also wondered why WotC never used the SRD in reverse. Publish a book once a year that takes the best 3PP OGL content and puts it in a WotC hard cover.
WotC may not have done it, but Malhavoc Press tried it once, I believe in 2003 or so. For whatever it proves about sales, they did not do another.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Of course I also wondered why WotC never used the SRD in reverse. Publish a book once a year that takes the best 3PP OGL content and puts it in a WotC hard cover.WotC may not have done it, but Malhavoc Press tried it once, I believe in 2003 or so. For whatever it proves about sales, they did not do another.
I wonder how Unearthed Arcana's sales were.
No offence intended to Monte, but his best of falls into that 'wasn't published by WotC' thing I mentioned above.
F.A.T.A.L. is kinda like a car crash. But inherently more disturbing...yet at the same time hilarious. Each page is a challenge to see which is worse, the abhorrent concept that is presented, or the horrendous mechanics that they use to impliment it.
Character sheets shouldn't need to come with a slide rule...
I remember reading a review of FATAL once... Itself a weird concept. It did take a good look at the actual mechanics of the game, and for some reason, the section on the urinate skill stuck with me. All these modifiers, dumped skill points and such, a whole system for who can piss farthest. And then, you can add a +80 modifier that invalidates it all by drinking two liters of water. So, esentially, you have a system for distance urination WHILE DEHYDRATED or at least when at risk of it.
Sum total: they are not just very strange and disturbed people, they are also bad at making RPGs. :-)
I seem to remember that if you fail enough urination checks, you risk a ruptured bladder. So it's very important to make sure your urination skills are sufficient.
*shudder*
WoTC has a dirty little secret.
A Brand is just a word.
..
Okay, memorax and all those that want Wizards to protect 5e because you believe it will maximize their profits. I don't because the D&D brand will reduce in value.
However . . .
If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.
Paizo's Adventure Paths have always been better than Wizards' written adventures. I know, you can say you can support both at the same time, but it would be better for Wizards if 5th Edition was OGL for that reason. The two companies can work their Symbiont circle even in a better way. Wizards can spit out rule books and Paizo can spit out APs designed for 5th Edition. The two companies prosper. That way, we all win.
The OGL makes it so that Paizo will prosper. If Wizards wants to prosper in the long run, they will put their stuff out with the OGL. The two companies prosper and the brand returns to the 800 lb. Gorrilla it should have been (it will take some time), because the fan base builds.
Otherwise, if Wizards doesn't its fan base dwindles. Compare GenCon to that of a Star Wars convention. How many attend GenCon and how many attend a Star Wars convention?
If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.
Paizo's Adventure Paths have always been better than Wizards' written adventures. I know, you can say you can support both at the same time, but it would be better for Wizards if 5th Edition was OGL for that reason. The two companies can work their Symbiont circle even in a better way. Wizards can spit out rule books and Paizo can spit out APs designed for 5th Edition. The two companies prosper. That way, we all win.
I dont have any knowledge of their plans or inclinations, of course, but I would be astonished if Paizo were to follow this course of action, even if 5E was released under the OGL.
Paizo have built a really successful system and are providing it with extremely high quality support. Given they're leery of even providing a Sci-Fi take on PF (or any other genre) wouldnt they be even more worried about supporting someone else's system?
I'd be sad if they followed this path (in some irrational way), since I value PF for it's own sake and think it would somehow devalue Paizo's achievement over the last few years were they to devote energy and resources to supporting another company's ruleset.
Having said that, I do generally use Paizo's flavor material and adventures for 4E anyhow, and I'll be surprised if the conversion job into 5E isnt as easy as the current edition.
If Paizo decided to publish 5E material, I would buy them. Of course this is assuming I make the jump to 5E and that Paizo would even publish for D&D again, which I doubt. Sadly that makes it a moot point for my purchases.
WoTC has a dirty little secret.
A Brand is just a word.
..Okay, memorax and all those that want Wizards to protect 5e because you believe it will maximize their profits. I don't because the D&D brand will reduce in value.
However . . .
If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.
Paizo's Adventure Paths have always been better than Wizards' written adventures. I know, you can say you can support both at the same time, but it would be better for Wizards if 5th Edition was OGL for that reason. The two companies can work their Symbiont circle even in a better way. Wizards can spit out rule books and Paizo can spit out APs designed for 5th Edition. The two companies prosper. That way, we all win.
The OGL makes it so that Paizo will prosper. If Wizards wants to prosper in the long run, they will put their stuff out with the OGL. The two companies prosper and the brand returns to the 800 lb. Gorrilla it should have been (it will take some time), because the fan base builds.
Otherwise, if Wizards doesn't its fan base dwindles. Compare GenCon to that of a Star Wars convention. How many attend GenCon and how many attend a Star Wars convention?
Sorry, but Paizo isn't going to do that. Paizo could have been producing 4e products right now under the GSL. They didn't. Why? Not because the GSL was too strict, though that certainly didn't help. The reason is that Paizo didn't want to dilute their talent by having to try to make products for several different systems. They focus on their own system and ignore the rest.
One of the few companies that tried to go the multiple edition route was Nick Louge's company, and we all saw how well that played out.
|
Okay, memorax and all those that want Wizards to protect 5e because you believe it will maximize their profits. I don't because the D&D brand will reduce in value.
For me it's also about making sure gamers buy D&D first 3pp second or even third. Wotc needs to maximize profits because they also need to pay salries and keep their employess well employed. And what's wrong with wanting to have both a proftiable company and one that releases quality. The whole misconception about wanting to make a profit in rpgs being bad needs to dissappear like the dodo or New Coke. Many other rpgs on the market do not have an OGL. It would be nice to have one I doubt it's going to lose it's value.
If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.
Until Paizo actual says they will it's all speculation. Not to mention Paizo has it's own brand and product it needs to push and focus on first. If and that is a big if imo any 5E AP from Paizo is years away if even on the drawing board. Hard to plan on writing an AP if your not even sure what the final rules will be or even if they have na OGL.
Paizo's Adventure Paths have always been better than Wizards' written adventures. I know, you can say you can support both at the same time, but it would be better for Wizards if 5th Edition was OGL for that reason. The two companies can work their Symbiont circle even in a better way. Wizards can spit out rule books and Paizo can spit out APs designed for 5th Edition. The two companies prosper. That way, we all win.
While I agree that for the most part Paizo Aps are better then Wotc adventures if any collobration happens it's years away. If it happens. Right now Wotc has to get it's own house in order before even thinking about working with someone else. Espcially a major competitor for fans and profit. First Wotc will focus on their own product line. It makes zero sense to invest time, resources and people into a new then work with someone else at least the start.
The OGL makes it so that Paizo will prosper. If Wizards wants to prosper in the long run, they will put their stuff out with the OGL. The two companies prosper and the brand returns to the 800 lb. Gorrilla it should have been (it will take some time), because the fan base builds.
No one can really guarantee an OGL will makes Wotc prosper. IF I were them I would think long and hard and make sure that if I were to implement an OGL that it benefits my company first then everyone else later. Before you say it's unfair it's not imo. If opthers are going to make a profit of Wotc why would they not make sure it benefits them in the short and long term. I still think that we will see an OGL. Except it's not going to be free and require that you pay a fee.
As for Paizo benefiting it does from an OGL. Yet don't forget not much competition on the market. It's ironic because with Pathfinder imo Paizo finds itself in the role of being the main company with others supplying 3pp just like Wotc was during 3.5. It's not like you have any 3pp that imo can challenge Pathfinder.
Otherwise, if Wizards doesn't its fan base dwindles.
Unless you can quote a source all your doing is assuming it will. Just like I'm assuming it won't. Plenty of rpg companies with no OGL on the market they seem to be doing well. An OGL is good. It's not a requirement. As long as a company produces decent quality products on a regular basis most of the fanbase is happy.
Compare GenCon to that of a Star Wars convention. How many attend GenCon and how many attend a Star Wars convention?
I honeslty don't know and to be honest don't care. Why is this even relavent to the discussion.
If you buy Pathfinder APs over Wizards' in house adventures then you know the reason why you should support Wizards going OGL for 5th Edition. it would allow PAIZO to produce APs for 5th Edition.
I don't think that this will happen.
I think the closest we could possibly get is a third party company negotiating a license with Paizo to produce official 5e conversions of Pathfinder APs, while operating under whatever license structure WotC draws up for third party 5e publishers.
And I think that even that is unlikely.
|
It took me almost no effort a all to convert part of rise of the rune lords to 4th Ed. About 15 minutes to be precise. That was 15 minutes of looking at cr appropriate critters with powers similar to the feel of the module. Once I had that list I modded on the fly.
I don't need ogl to run pathfinder AP's for dnd. What makes their AP's great is the plot, not the stat blocks.
If 5th edition is as easy to design and run encounters as 4th is, then really, pathfinder AP's are fine as is.
Cheers
|
|
Sorry, but Paizo isn't going to do that. Paizo could have been producing 4e products right now under the GSL. They didn't. Why? Not because the GSL was too strict, though that certainly didn't help. The reason is that Paizo didn't want to dilute their talent by having to try to make products for several different systems. They focus on their own system and ignore the rest.
One of the few companies that tried to go the multiple edition route was Nick Louge's company, and we all saw how well that played out.
Have you read the GSL?
If Paizo wanted to stay with it's current product lines, they cannot produce anything concerning 4e. But if they go with 4e, you cannot go back to the OGL, if your 4e products don't pan out for you, AND WoTC can revoke your ability to publish for them at any time, for any reason.
It also has nothing to do with talent dilution. The vast majority of writers for both of them are freelancers.
The issue is what system would freelancers rather work with, the one they may some day be able to self publish/multi-system publish for, or the one that is restricted?
|
|
If Paizo wanted to stay with it's current product lines, they cannot produce anything concerning 4e.
Does the current version of the GSL only limit you to not producing an OGL version of a specific product, rather than product line now? Though I recognise at the time Paizo were making their decision it was likely the Product Line version.
Also even then, there are effectively ways around it using other companies, e.g. Expeditious Retreat produced the 4e Freeport Companion under licence of Green Ronin to get around the GSL clause (as GR still wanted to produce OGL versions of Freeport Companions).
|
|
If Paizo wanted to stay with it's current product lines, they cannot produce anything concerning 4e.Does the current version of the GSL only limit you to not producing an OGL version of a specific product, rather than product line now? Though I recognise at the time Paizo were making their decision it was likely the Product Line version.
Also even then, there are effectively ways around it using other companies, e.g. Expeditious Retreat produced the 4e Freeport Companion under licence of Green Ronin to get around the GSL clause (as GR still wanted to produce OGL versions of Freeport Companions).
This explains the issues. It is better now, but still not good by any stretch.
|
If Paizo wanted to stay with it's current product lines, they cannot produce anything concerning 4e.Does the current version of the GSL only limit you to not producing an OGL version of a specific product, rather than product line now? Though I recognise at the time Paizo were making their decision it was likely the Product Line version.
Also even then, there are effectively ways around it using other companies, e.g. Expeditious Retreat produced the 4e Freeport Companion under licence of Green Ronin to get around the GSL clause (as GR still wanted to produce OGL versions of Freeport Companions).
I think the GSL has been modified to allow this now. Certainly there are some 3PP that are releasing products for both 4E and Pathfinder...Open Design and EN Publishing come to mind, and I'm sure there are others.
I think the GSL has been modified to allow this now. Certainly there are some 3PP that are releasing products for both 4E and Pathfinder...Open Design and EN Publishing come to mind, and I'm sure there are others.
It should be noted that Open Design doesn't use the GSL. They just publish new material based on the fact that rules can't be copyrighted. So they don't actual mention D&D in their product, just a big "4" logo is all it takes for everyone to know what they are talking about.
The revised GSL is a little better for publishers, but not good enough for most of the larger companies.
They do mention D&D dont they? They just have a disclaimer at the front stating that any reference is "not a challenge to the copyright" or similar.
I'm sure I've seen something along the lines of "An adventure for 4th edition D&D" or similar, even though it's not released under the GSL or the OGL.
Speaking as one of the people who WotC would love to return to the fold, without an OGL-style agreement it's not going to happen. No offense to them, no knock on their ability to put together a game, but they just won't get my cash. Period. I'm not investing in a game that can be killed off at a whim. I'm very glad now that I decided to not buy any 4e products.
Plus, I enjoy 3pp. The good, the bad, the ugly. Even if a PDF isnt top rate material, the price point is fairly low and I can yoink the best bits for my own game. I think it adds a lot to the game's gestalt when the fans can participate in this manner.
I'll be monitoring the progress of 5e, but without an OGL I won't be buying.