Dear WotC: D&D 5, Hero Lab, and the OGL


4th Edition


Dear WotC:

Over on the Lone Wolf forums there is a discussion about Hero Lab supporting 5E. The gist is that their hands are tied until you releases news on 5E licensing.

This is exactly what I feared would happen.

You should have learned from 4E and embraced the OGL early and publicly for 5E. Unfortunately, your failure to do so is already having negative effects on your potential customers. And for what? The OGL genie is out of the bottle. The good news is that it isn't too late to make it right. Release 5E under the OGL. Don't discourage third party support of your product by creating uncertainty. Don't hamstring 5E before it is even released. Please.

Sincerely,

A D&D fan
32 years and counting


Any particular reason this is on a Paizo board, and not a WotC one? I'm not sure what the point of posting this here is.

That aside, I would be surprised if 5e gets an OGL treatment like 3e did. That didn't work out like WotC probably thought it would. It ended making their largest competitor possible (allowing Paizo to create Pathfinder, and therefore compete with 4e).

If anything, we may see something similar to how 4e OGL stuff was done. No actual mechanics, just the names. You can reference where the material is, but thats about it.


Jeraa wrote:

Any particular reason this is on a Paizo board, and not a WotC one? I'm not sure what the point of posting this here is.

That aside, I would be surprised if 5e gets an OGL treatment like 3e did. That didn't work out like WotC probably thought it would. It ended making their largest competitor possible (allowing Paizo to create Pathfinder, and therefore compete with 4e).

If anything, we may see something similar to how 4e OGL stuff was done. No actual mechanics, just the names. You can reference where the material is, but thats about it.

I posted here because this is the board I use the most by far, and I think it is of interest to many here. That said, I did also post on ENWorld. The WotC forums are horrible to the point that I'm simply unwilling to use them.

As for making their largest competitor possible -- that's totally true, but too late to take back.


Didn't Mearls announce they would have an anouncement about licensing in 2015? So I wouldn't hold your breath expecting one anytime soon.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given that I ain't seeing any OGL in the free Basic Rules, I give it chances slim to zero.

Most likely scenario is some kind of compatibility license for non-profit works only. After all, who would want to risk another Pathfinder situation? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Dear WotC:

Over on the Lone Wolf forums there is a discussion about Hero Lab supporting 5E. The gist is that their hands are tied until you releases news on 5E licensing.

This is exactly what I feared would happen.

You should have learned from 4E and embraced the OGL early and publicly for 5E. Unfortunately, your failure to do so is already having negative effects on your potential customers. And for what? The OGL genie is out of the bottle. The good news is that it isn't too late to make it right. Release 5E under the OGL. Don't discourage third party support of your product by creating uncertainty. Don't hamstring 5E before it is even released. Please.

Sincerely,

A D&D fan
32 years and counting

Why would WotC voluntarily cheapen the value of its own licensee (Trapdoor Technologies) by allowing other digital tools companies the same level of rights access without the protections of a (robust) licensing agreement? Heck, it's possible that Trapdoor even has an exclusive license to develop D&D digital tools.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

WOTC I think has a deal going with some company launching their E tools.(what is it called now, project morning star?) I doubt the folks at hero lab will be given a shot at 5E anytime soon. WOTC is working with third parties, but for now it seems only on their terms.


Scott Betts wrote:
Why would WotC voluntarily cheapen the value of its own licensee (Trapdoor Technologies) by allowing other digital tools companies the same level of rights access without the protections of a (robust) licensing agreement? Heck, it's possible that Trapdoor even has an exclusive license to develop D&D digital tools.

The specific item in question (digital chargen tools) is kinda incidental to my point: The OGL cat is out of the bag. People who really want to put in the effort can already do 5E products using the OGL (see Frog God). All that not releasing 5E explicitly under the OGL does is muddy the waters, raise the bar to entry (not every company has a lawyer or judge on-staff), and discourage participation.

I'm buying 5E either way, and want to see it succeed. In my opinion repeating the lack of communication at launch surrounding licensing for 4E isn't a good start.


bugleyman wrote:
The specific item in question (digital chargen tools) is kinda incidental to my point: The OGL cat is out of the bag. People who really want to put in the effort can already do 5E products using the OGL (see Frog God).

They can, yes, but they are forced to make some unpleasant changes to certain pieces of protected content to avoid stepping on 5e copyright toes (since 5e isn't covered by the OGL). This works out alright for a print product (like an adventure) because it should be at least mostly clear what a given reference means even if the language is slightly changed. It causes all kinds of problems, however, in a digital tool product where you would want the ability to, for example, search for specific named rules elements (monsters, feats, abilities, equipment, etc.).

Frog God is doing this because they have sought legal counsel to avoid breaking copyright law, they've decided to publish an almost entirely additive product so that they don't have to call out official published content very often, and because they really want to be first to the table.

The OGL cat is out of the bag, but at this point it's ugly and malnourished and very few people are willing to put up with its crap.

Trapdoor will be putting out a character creation tool soon, and there will be some kind of licensing structure available next year.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


The OGL cat is out of the bag, but at this point it's ugly and malnourished and very few people are willing to put up with its crap.

Well, I'd say it's a quite a big cat that ate WotC's market leadership for lunch, but YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
The OGL cat is out of the bag, but at this point it's ugly and malnourished and very few people are willing to put up with its crap.

I'm confused, aren't we on the website for the most popular RPG system, one supported by literally dozens of 3rd party publishers, all if which is made possible because of the OGL? And isn't this game just one of many others that exist because of that same OGL? I have a very hard time reconciling those facts with your opinion that the OGL is something very few people are willing to put up with.


idilippy wrote:
I'm confused, aren't we on the website for the most popular RPG system, one supported by literally dozens of 3rd party publishers, all if which is made possible because of the OGL? And isn't this game just one of many others that exist because of that same OGL? I have a very hard time reconciling those facts with your opinion that the OGL is something very few people are willing to put up with.

Plenty of people are willing to put up with the OGL for the system it was written for. I expect very few people are willing to shoehorn it into systems that it was not written for. We're talking about 5e, not 3.5. Especially once an actual licensing framework is released for 5e.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


The OGL cat is out of the bag, but at this point it's ugly and malnourished and very few people are willing to put up with its crap.

Well, I'd say it's a quite a big cat that ate WotC's market leadership for lunch, but YMMV.

Paizo has been the market leader... while D&D was all but dormant. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo finds themselves kicked down to #2 very quickly after 5th edition's release.


Scott Betts wrote:
Plenty of people are willing to put up with the OGL for the system it was written for. I expect very few people are willing to shoehorn it into systems that it was not written for. We're talking about 5e, not 3.5.

The OGL has been put to use re-creating pretty much every other version of D&D: Everything from OSRIC and Castles and Crusades (1st Edition) to Labrinth Lord (D&D) to god knows what else. All they do is change a few names. I think it's highly likely someone will do the same thing for 5th edition unless they're given a better choice (i.e. the release of 5E under the OGL). Advantage becomes favor; disadvantage becomes disfavor. Pretty much all the other terms (AC, hit points, hit dice, saving throws, etc.) are accessible through the existing 3.5 OGL.

Scott Betts wrote:
Especially once an actual licensing framework is released for 5e.

Perhaps. However, I think the GSL fiasco demonstrated pretty conclusively that the terms of the license matter.

So in summary: By not releasing 5E under the OGL, WotC can make it inconvenient to support 5E. However, a determined party could still use the 3.5 OGL to do what Paizo has done with 3.5 (and what WotC apparently fears someone will do with 5E): Publish a viable D&D competitor. As someone who wants to see 5E succeed, that seems like the worst of all possible worlds.


I suspect the same thing won't happen until 5E is retired. Or if someone does, which they actually probably will given the number of people on the net, it will remain a tiny niche. Is there a 4E clone out there competing with 4E? Even now that they're not really making 4E products? What's its market share?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Well, I'd say it's a quite a big cat that ate WotC's market leadership for lunch, but YMMV.
Paizo has been the market leader... while D&D was all but dormant. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo finds themselves kicked down to #2 very quickly after 5th edition's release.

I expect it will, for a time. How long depends on how well 5e does. Even 4e had its hands full with the Pathfinder competition since PF was showing up well right during Essentials, before D&D 4e was dormant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i will never ever buy a single WotC product ever again, ever! They can sink or swim, im fully committed to PFRPG:)


I also hope they embrace the OGL (I dont really understand the terminology "release 5E under the OGL" since the core 3.5 books werent OGL were they? It'd be good if they updated the SRD though to include mechanics like advantage/disadvantage).

I'm hoping the Necromancer games kickstarter demonstrates to them that it's going to happen anyway and they may as well garner the goodwill and 3PP support, rather than try and fight it.


bugleyman wrote:
The OGL has been put to use re-creating pretty much every other version of D&D: Everything from OSRIC and Castles and Crusades (1st Edition) to Labrinth Lord (D&D) to god knows what else. All they do is change a few names.

And this is because they didn't have any other in-print option.

Quote:
I think it's highly likely someone will do the same thing for 5th edition unless they're given a better choice (i.e. the release of 5E under the OGL).

5e is the better choice. There is no market need for someone to create a confusing 5e clone, because 5e already exists and is receiving current support.

Quote:
Perhaps. However, I think the GSL fiasco demonstrated pretty conclusively that the terms of the license matter.

I remain convinced that the actual terms of the license didn't matter at all, except insofar as people misconstrued or misjudged the terms of the license (save, perhaps, large companies like Paizo for whom the license is actually untenable), especially after its revision. There are a number of small 3pps that worked within the GSL just fine.

Quote:
So in summary: By not releasing 5E under the OGL, WotC can make it inconvenient to support 5E. However, a determined party could still use the 3.5 OGL to do what Paizo has done with 3.5 (and what WotC apparently fears someone will do with 5E): Publish a viable D&D competitor. As someone who wants to see 5E succeed, that seems like the worst of all possible worlds.

But why would anyone do that? Given the choice between buying the version of 5e made by the official creators and with a huge support and player base, or the version of 5e made by a tiny company with very little to distinguish itself and almost no player base adoption, why would anyone choose the latter? Edition clones have only been reasonably successful when they clone a version of the game that is no longer in print.


Scott Betts wrote:
I remain convinced that the actual terms of the license didn't matter at all, except insofar as people misconstrued or misjudged the terms of the license (save, perhaps, large companies like Paizo for whom the license is actually untenable), especially after its revision. There are a number of small 3pps that worked within the GSL just fine.

And I remain convinced that if WotC had released 4E under the OGL from the start, there wouldn't be a Pathfinder RPG. The OGL made Pathfinder possible, but WotC abandoning the OGL made Pathfinder necessary. You know as well as I do that the "we can't tell the kinds of stories we want with 4E" excuse is tripe. You know because you've used 4E to tell those stories. You wrote an excellent conversion of ROTRL for 4E, for heaven's sake.

Scott Betts wrote:
But why would anyone do that? Given the choice between buying the version of 5e made by the official creators and with a huge support and player base, or the version of 5e made by a tiny company with very little to distinguish itself and almost no player base adoption, why would anyone choose the latter? Edition clones have only been reasonably successful when they clone a version of the game that is no longer in print.

I'm not suggesting someone would...I'm suggesting that WotC's irrational fear of someone doing so is the only reason I can see for them not releasing 5E under the OGL. Which is funny, because if someone did want to do it, not releasing 5E under the OGL wouldn't stop them.

You're obviously free to disagree, but it seems quite clear to me that Wotc has little to gain by avoiding the OGL...but quite a lot to lose.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
idilippy wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The OGL cat is out of the bag, but at this point it's ugly and malnourished and very few people are willing to put up with its crap.
I'm confused, aren't we on the website for the most popular RPG system, one supported by literally dozens of 3rd party publishers, all if which is made possible because of the OGL? And isn't this game just one of many others that exist because of that same OGL? I have a very hard time reconciling those facts with your opinion that the OGL is something very few people are willing to put up with.

That really hasn't benefited WOTC that well, has it? It's been good for US, true, but not for WOTC's bottom line. That was part of the problem with 3rd edition for WOTC, people were buying other products, not Wizards'.


LazarX wrote:
That really hasn't benefited WOTC that well, has it? It's been good for US, true, but not for WOTC's bottom line. That was part of the problem with 3rd edition for WOTC, people were buying other products, not Wizards'.

Perhaps, but even assuming that's true, WotC can't go back in time and undo the OGL. They can either embrace the OGL with 5E, and gain advantage, or try (again) to kill it, and gain disadvantage. ;)

As someone who wants to see 5e succeed, I hope they do the former.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What was the actual effect of the OGL? A 3.5 clone called Pathfinder and a bunch of d20 games in a bunch of genres that used to be represented by unique systems back when game designers were original and not derivative copy cats. The OGL just made gaming look boringly same across the board. Give me the Eighties and Nineties when people made systems to fit a genre, and didn't try to shoehorn everything into one system. Meh.

5e will succeed based on the merits of the game and how well WotC supports it, and how discriminating they are about who gets to publish 3pp material for it (i.e. none of that Mongoose and AEG crap, for instance). The OGL was a good thing for people who like rolling nothing but d20s, but it really sucked for diversity in the market, and it really screwed WotC in the end. 4e didn't do as well as expected for a ton of reasons, but the GSL was probably the least of them, to be frank. Killing a bunch of sacred cows, pissing off (intentionally or not) a bunch of older gamers, butchering Faerun, and a game called Pathfinder that basically kept the immediately prior edition of D&D commercially alive and played broadly (albeit in the form of Jason's housrules) did far more damage to their market share than a restrictive license.

Shadow Lodge

All of what HD just said.


what does GSL stand for?


Game System License.


thanks joana!


Without the OGL, there would be no:

Pathfinder
Castles and Crusades
Mutants and Masterminds
OSRIC
13th Age
Labyrinth Lord
Spy Craft
Etc., etc., etc.

Was there a flood of crap? Absolutely (Fast Forward, I'm looking at you). But overall, lots of cool games -- and a lot of great adventures -- wouldn't exist without the OGL. YMMV.


bugleyman wrote:

Without the OGL, there would be no:

Pathfinder
Castles and Crusades
Mutants and Masterminds
OSRIC
13th Age
Labyrinth Lord
Spy Craft
Etc., etc., etc.

Was there a flood of crap? Absolutely (Fast Forward, I'm looking at you). But overall, lots of cool games -- and a lot of great adventures -- wouldn't exist without the OGL. YMMV.

Which is part of the problem, from WotCs standpoint. The idea was that, with certain parts of the d20 system not being OGC (like the experience tables and certain monsters), people who wanted to play 3rd party rulesets would also need a copy of the d20 core rulebooks (namely, the 3.X Players Handbook) for that missing information.

However, most 3rd party companies either ignored that completely (just level up the players when you want to), or created their own mechanics to fill the hole (like Paizo did with Pathfinder experience tables). That removed the need entirely for a WotC core rulebook. And so WotC made no money off of someone else using their creation, which from a business standpoint is very bad. (Which is probably the primary reason WotC switched from the OGL to the GSL for 4e.)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Without the OGL, there would be no:

Pathfinder
Castles and Crusades
Mutants and Masterminds
OSRIC
13th Age
Labyrinth Lord
Spy Craft
Etc., etc., etc.

Was there a flood of crap? Absolutely (Fast Forward, I'm looking at you). But overall, lots of cool games -- and a lot of great adventures -- wouldn't exist without the OGL. YMMV.

Without the OGL we had:

AD&D (what eventually became Pathfinder, is OSRIC, and basically is Castle and Crusades) - underwhelming example.
Champions (much better game than Mutants and Masterminds)
A crapload of other systems that were relatively popular and commercially viable until the OGL and the d20 era.

So, the OGL, again, basically made a market where it was all basically "Let's play 3.X in space/superheroes/spyland/Star Wars!!!".

Ugh.

Diversity. It's what the OGL KILLED, not encouraged.

Seriously, I don't care about OSRIC/castles and crusades/13th age/any d20 fantasy game other than D&D, I don't need twenty different names for basically the same d20 fantasy game. If I want a different flavor of fantasy, I want a completely different system so it feels different. Not the exact same mechanics with different fluff.


houstonderek wrote:

Without the OGL we had:

AD&D (what eventually became Pathfinder, is OSRIC, and basically is Castle and Crusades) - underwhelming example.
Champions (much better game than Mutants and Masterminds)
A crapload of other systems that were relatively popular and commercially viable until the OGL and the d20 era.

So, the OGL, again, basically made a market where it was all basically "Let's play 3.X in space/superheroes/spyland/Star Wars!!!".

Ugh.

Diversity. It's what the OGL KILLED, not encouraged.

Seriously, I don't care about OSRIC/castles and crusades/13th age/any d20 fantasy game other than D&D, I don't need twenty different names for basically the same d20 fantasy game. If I want a different flavor of fantasy, I want a completely different system so it feels different. Not the exact same mechanics with different fluff.

I guess I didn't have that experience. I could still play Champions just fine. In fact, a new edition of Hero came out in 2001. And we got new games like Fate (2003) and Savage Worlds(2004) during the heyday of the OGL.


It kinda feels like folks are making mountains out of molehills here. The reality is that we don't yet know what licensing terms, if any, will be in effect for D&D 5E, and we won't until at least November, judging by the official word from WotC.

I do think, though, that actions of the sort that Necromancer is currently taking are ultimately deleterious to the possibility of us getting a viable 3PP licensing scheme for D&D 5E, if only because the way they're going about it is sure to leave a bad taste in WotC's mouth. I'm pretty sure that whatever they are doing is legal, but I'm a bit concerned that they're going to spoil the fun for a lot of other publishers just to be able to say "FIRST!" and make an easy cash grab via Kickstarter. That isn't an effort that I am willing to support as a consumer and a gamer.

Paizo Employee CEO

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Well, I'd say it's a quite a big cat that ate WotC's market leadership for lunch, but YMMV.
Paizo has been the market leader... while D&D was all but dormant. I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo finds themselves kicked down to #2 very quickly after 5th edition's release.
I expect it will, for a time. How long depends on how well 5e does. Even 4e had its hands full with the Pathfinder competition since PF was showing up well right during Essentials, before D&D 4e was dormant.

We may very well be "kicked down" to #2, but it would be more accurate to say "kicked up" to #2, because Pathfinder continues to grow and sell more and more Core Rulebooks. This quarter we are in right now, the one where D&D 5e is releasing, will see us sell more Beginner's Boxes and Core Rulebooks than any other quarter outside of the ones the two products were released in!

It seems pretty clear to me that D&D5 is going to scratch an itch for some customers that wouldn't be interested in Pathfinder. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think there is all that much overlap between our two markets, which is great for roleplaying games, since that means more people playing RPGs. If we were just divvying up the same shrinking pie, then it would be a losing situation for all. But for my vantage, it seems like RPGs are growing. I know that Pathfinder sure is!

-Lisa

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
That really hasn't benefited WOTC that well, has it? It's been good for US, true, but not for WOTC's bottom line. That was part of the problem with 3rd edition for WOTC, people were buying other products, not Wizards'.

People keep missing one of the most brilliant aspects of the OGL (from Wizards' point of view). Before the OGL, all of the fantasy gaming publishers other than TSR created their own systems and published their own content for their own systems. If that had continued, all of those people you refer to who were buying other products wouldn't have been giving *any* money to Wizards... but *with* the OGL, they were very likely buying at least a Player's Handbook and probably a Dungeon Master's Guide from Wizards, if not also a Monster Manual. As long as Wizards had the best OGL rulebooks out there, all that third-party OGL content was *increasing* sales of their two or three most profitable products.


Lisa Stevens wrote:

We may very well be "kicked down" to #2, but it would be more accurate to say "kicked up" to #2, because Pathfinder continues to grow and sell more and more Core Rulebooks. This quarter we are in right now, the one where D&D 5e is releasing, will see us sell more Beginner's Boxes and Core Rulebooks than any other quarter outside of the ones the two products were released in!

It seems pretty clear to me that D&D5 is going to scratch an itch for some customers that wouldn't be interested in Pathfinder. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think there is all that much overlap between our two markets, which is great for roleplaying games, since that means more people playing RPGs. If we were just divvying up the same shrinking pie, then it would be a losing situation for all. But for my vantage, it seems like RPGs are growing. I know that Pathfinder sure is!

-Lisa

Pathfinder and 5E aren't mutually exclusive, either. I expect to run a home game with 5E, but I don't see myself abandoning PFS any time soon. All my friends are there. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:

We may very well be "kicked down" to #2, but it would be more accurate to say "kicked up" to #2, because Pathfinder continues to grow and sell more and more Core Rulebooks. This quarter we are in right now, the one where D&D 5e is releasing, will see us sell more Beginner's Boxes and Core Rulebooks than any other quarter outside of the ones the two products were released in!

It seems pretty clear to me that D&D5 is going to scratch an itch for some customers that wouldn't be interested in Pathfinder. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think there is all that much overlap between our two markets, which is great for roleplaying games, since that means more people playing RPGs. If we were just divvying up the same shrinking pie, then it would be a losing situation for all. But for my vantage, it seems like RPGs are growing. I know that Pathfinder sure is!

-Lisa

I will likely be playing 5E just because it is simpler. I have been playing D&D for nearly thirty years and as I've gotten older, I have been looking for something simpler. In the end, however, I will continue to give money to Paizo. I don't see myself dropping my AP subscription and the maps and pawns are just as useful in 5E as they are in Pathfinder. I regularly spend money on Savage Worlds, Fate, Pathfinder and now D&D. There is always room for quality products from any company in the RPG market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lisa Stevens wrote:

We may very well be "kicked down" to #2, but it would be more accurate to say "kicked up" to #2, because Pathfinder continues to grow and sell more and more Core Rulebooks. This quarter we are in right now, the one where D&D 5e is releasing, will see us sell more Beginner's Boxes and Core Rulebooks than any other quarter outside of the ones the two products were released in!

It seems pretty clear to me that D&D5 is going to scratch an itch for some customers that wouldn't be interested in Pathfinder. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think there is all that much overlap between our two markets, which is great for roleplaying games, since that means more people playing RPGs. If we were just divvying up the same shrinking pie, then it would be a losing situation for all. But for my vantage, it seems like RPGs are growing. I know that Pathfinder sure is!

-Lisa

Well, Pathfinder lost me. Customers come and go, absolutely. But, some little things lead by some huge recent moves just ended my enjoyment of the system. Primarly, I can't escape the feeling that PFS is dictating the future direction of Pathfinder at large more and more. Many genuinely unique things got trashed like Crane Wing all because of PFS complaints. The two should be separate. The thing with spells known also smells of the same situation. It all seems to work toward a generalizing of the system skewing towards more of what 4E was.

Also, the manner of sweeping nature of those changes by way of errata rather than making them really work with a new system with staff comments here and there makes me think Paizo will evolve Pathfinder rather than releasing a new edition. Thus, there is no permanence or sense of mastery of the system since what the system is can and will change based on the needs of the moment rather than what works with the system overall.

A minor nitpick has been the recent book styling. Part of what drew me in to the aesthetics of the CRB was that 'old tome' page design. The new style isn't bad. It's just not what hooked me. In relation to the above points this is incredibly minor.

Anyway, I hope you see this as I've thoroughly enjoyed Pathfinder since beta. My introduction was literally during a 3.5 session with my DM dragging our characters through a portal into Golarion where we then made Pathfinder versions of our characters with beta rules. That was cool. I'm sure you do get tons of feedback how awesome Pathfinder is. It really is. The shakiness is something I can't accept from an expensive hobby. Looking at 5th presents a system that is flavorful, concise, and feels genuinely evolutionary in its concepts. I understand that Paizo has a lot invested into what Pathfinder currently is, but I hope you find the courage to really create your own niche and try to solve all those pesky problems that make you feel like you need to change the base system to cater to a vocal minority of your customers.

All the best.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Dear WotC: D&D 5, Hero Lab, and the OGL All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition