As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Penny Arcade - Comic - Ogle

DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin

Ogle!

Penny Arcade - Comic - Ogle

Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.

Read the full story here

QuidMan in the MistsKoopahTroopahAndy JoefurlionRingoAegeriTrain Dodger
«1

Posts

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    q3qi0kueqr9o.jpeg

    Reminds me of this gem from The Good Place.

    CSPOhhO.png
    ThawmuszepherinkimeAegeri
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    Definitely waiting for a banger of a news post for this.

    QuidOverkillengineThawmusLucedeszepherinAegeri
  • OverkillengineOverkillengine Registered User regular
    Yeah I am guessing some of the execs at WoTC do not want another Paizo/Pathfinder to happen, and of course going about it in a hilariously wrong way by pissing off and exploiting even loyal customers instead of making a product good enough to retain them in the face of competition.

    Blizzard C-suites seems to be having a similar issue when it comes to the WC3 remaster and wanting to prevent another DOTA.

  • oh3fiftyoneoh3fiftyone Registered User regular
    Faith restored. I was worried for a second, there.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 13
    Yeah I am guessing some of the execs at WoTC do not want another Paizo/Pathfinder to happen, and of course going about it in a hilariously wrong way by pissing off and exploiting even loyal customers instead of making a product good enough to retain them in the face of competition.

    Blizzard C-suites seems to be having a similar issue when it comes to the WC3 remaster and wanting to prevent another DOTA.

    They're cool with another Pathfinder.

    They just insist they own that new Pathfinder outright in perpetuity, are entitled to 25% of the profits, and can change any terms of that ownership after 30 days notice. Also it's retroactive.

    To paraphrase Gygax, I think WotC's current leadership is going to learn that players don't need the rules. Not theirs specifically anyway.

    Quid on
    V1mMan in the MistsAndy JoefurlionRingodennisSmrtnikGiantGeek2020Aegerilwt1973
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    It's not as if there aren't like a jillion other tabletop RPGs out there to choose from. A ot of huge geeks play D&D, and even more are sentimentally attached to their memories of it. WoTC seem to be going about it exactly the right way to provoke some kind of popular free alternative.

    QuidThawmusRingoMatevGiantGeek2020Aegeri
  • islingtonislington Registered User regular
    Faith restored. I was worried for a second, there.

    Check the painting stream with Bronze from last week, Jerry is clearly not happy with their WoTC relationship at present.

  • tgbennett30tgbennett30 Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    It's not as if there aren't like a jillion other tabletop RPGs out there to choose from. A ot of huge geeks play D&D, and even more are sentimentally attached to their memories of it. WoTC seem to be going about it exactly the right way to provoke some kind of popular free alternative.

    Well, perhaps not a *free* alternative, but Pathfinder released their own version of an OGL yesterday, likely mostly as a thumb in WotC’s eye, and boy does it skewer them :-)

    V1mThawmusQuidGiantGeek2020
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    I did see a news headline come across my feed this morning that WotC might be walking it back already due to how staggeringly unpopular it was. But I can't find it anymore.

    steam_sig.png
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    WoTC will listen to money and nothing else.

    ThawmusPALaxxGiantGeek2020Aegerizepherin
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    WotC: So how much revenue have you made from your little "aquisitions incorporated" venture??

    steam_sig.png
  • GrendusGrendus Registered User regular
    edited January 13
    V1m wrote: »
    It's not as if there aren't like a jillion other tabletop RPGs out there to choose from. A ot of huge geeks play D&D, and even more are sentimentally attached to their memories of it. WoTC seem to be going about it exactly the right way to provoke some kind of popular free alternative.

    Well, perhaps not a *free* alternative, but Pathfinder released their own version of an OGL yesterday, likely mostly as a thumb in WotC’s eye, and boy does it skewer them :-)

    Paizo, the company behind Pathfinder, announced they were working on the Open RPG Creative license (ORC) along with other major third party publishers like Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. It's not out yet, they just announced it in the same way that many of the major third party content creators announced they were working on their own systems.

    Also, Pathfinder 1e and 2e are both free. Paizo sells the books, minis, battlemaps, standalone adventures and adventure paths, etc but all the rules (including all of the classes, spells, monsters, feats, items... basically everything) are free on Archive of Nethys. They even have a bunch of free adventures available on their website.

    Paizo is basically the embodiment of "the first hit is free". The books, adventures, and adventure paths are all excellent, I highly recommend them, but the rules being free makes the buy in very light for groups hesitant about switching.

    Edit:
    I did see a news headline come across my feed this morning that WotC might be walking it back already due to how staggeringly unpopular it was. But I can't find it anymore.

    They decided to delay the announcement. Technically they never announced the OGL 1.1 so there's nothing to walk back. But they also haven't denounced the rumors, which makes them far more credible. If they really didn't intend to do this, they would have come out and said they intended to release D&Done under the OGL 1.0. They just think they can wait out the internet ragestorm.

    But I don't think it will work. The issue isn't the players, it's the publishers. Many of the highly regarded third party publishers for 5e have jumped ship, they don't want to spend the time creating content for this new system if WotC is going to shake them down and reserve the right to take their stuff at any time with no recourse.

    Grendus on
    QuidShenl742RingoV1mMatevGiantGeek2020YoungFreyAegeriThawmus
  • tgbennett30tgbennett30 Registered User regular
    Grendus wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    It's not as if there aren't like a jillion other tabletop RPGs out there to choose from. A ot of huge geeks play D&D, and even more are sentimentally attached to their memories of it. WoTC seem to be going about it exactly the right way to provoke some kind of popular free alternative.

    Well, perhaps not a *free* alternative, but Pathfinder released their own version of an OGL yesterday, likely mostly as a thumb in WotC’s eye, and boy does it skewer them :-)

    Paizo, the company behind Pathfinder, announced they were working on the Open RPG Creative license (ORC) along with other major third party publishers like Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. It's not out yet, they just announced it in the same way that many of the major third party content creators announced they were working on their own systems.

    Oh, indeed - I have a TON of Pathfinder 1e stuff, I'm well aware of what they do, who works there, how they operate, etc.

    But I just can't help but think that competing announcement was a natural 20 in its timing :-)

  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Grendus wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    It's not as if there aren't like a jillion other tabletop RPGs out there to choose from. A ot of huge geeks play D&D, and even more are sentimentally attached to their memories of it. WoTC seem to be going about it exactly the right way to provoke some kind of popular free alternative.

    Well, perhaps not a *free* alternative, but Pathfinder released their own version of an OGL yesterday, likely mostly as a thumb in WotC’s eye, and boy does it skewer them :-)

    Paizo, the company behind Pathfinder, announced they were working on the Open RPG Creative license (ORC) along with other major third party publishers like Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. It's not out yet, they just announced it in the same way that many of the major third party content creators announced they were working on their own systems.

    Also, Pathfinder 1e and 2e are both free. Paizo sells the books, minis, battlemaps, standalone adventures and adventure paths, etc but all the rules (including all of the classes, spells, monsters, feats, items... basically everything) are free on Archive of Nethys. They even have a bunch of free adventures available on their website.

    Paizo is basically the embodiment of "the first hit is free". The books, adventures, and adventure paths are all excellent, I highly recommend them, but the rules being free makes the buy in very light for groups hesitant about switching.

    Edit:
    I did see a news headline come across my feed this morning that WotC might be walking it back already due to how staggeringly unpopular it was. But I can't find it anymore.

    They decided to delay the announcement. Technically they never announced the OGL 1.1 so there's nothing to walk back. But they also haven't denounced the rumors, which makes them far more credible. If they really didn't intend to do this, they would have come out and said they intended to release D&Done under the OGL 1.0. They just think they can wait out the internet ragestorm.

    But I don't think it will work. The issue isn't the players, it's the publishers. Many of the highly regarded third party publishers for 5e have jumped ship, they don't want to spend the time creating content for this new system if WotC is going to shake them down and reserve the right to take their stuff at any time with no recourse.

    Ah here we go. Not the original story I'd seen, but this one's Ars so I trust them more than some random Google news aggregator.
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/amid-widespread-backlash-dd-maker-scales-back-open-license-changes/
    For instance, WotC now says directly that any content already released under the previous version of the OGL will "remain unaffected" by the update. That contradicts language in a leaked draft of the license update suggesting that the earlier version of the OGL "is no longer an authorized license agreement."

    The updated version of the OGL also will "not contain... any royalty structure," WotC writes, despite draft language calling for a 25 percent royalty on annual revenues above $750,000. The now-removed royalty language was "designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content" and wasn't intended "to impact the vast majority of the community," the company writes. "However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1."

    WotC says it will also not claim a "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license" on fan-created content under the OGL, as suggested in the leaked draft update.

    steam_sig.png
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    Despite the weird formatting errors in the post Jerry is pretty much spot on. They brought this whole thing down in their own heads and the easiest way is to just release all updated version of OGL 1.0a saying it is permanent and irrevocable. And even that will, at best, get players to stay. All those publishers and creators are gone for good.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
    NipsRingosilence1186SmrtnikAndy JoeGiantGeek2020Thawmus
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Yup. They allowed the problem to sit and fester out in the open. As Jerry said in the newspost, they have "manufactured chaos." By simply not addressing the rumors and leak head-on, the situation is much worse now than it ever would have been.

    And at this point, Pandora's Box is wide open. Paizo is making ORC with input from other sources. They are determined to hand over their new license to a third party custodian that is committed to open source licensing as a general concept. This is going to happen. And even with their apology, even with a 180 on stances, the damage is irrevocably done to WotC and the D&D Brand.

    I can't help but draw some parallels to what happened two years ago with Warcraft 3 Reforged and their creative license for their world builder toolkit. Blizz saw the success of DotA, not as a triumph for their community, but rather as a lost monetization opportunity, and they resolved to not miss another such opportunity in the future. And so they basically completely killed their creative community in the pursuit of claiming partial ownership of any future DotA-like phenomenons.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    They were given a golden goose and decided to gut it to get the next egg faster.

    furlionHavelock2.0MatevAndy JoeGiantGeek2020YoungFreyislingtonAegeriThawmus
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    I feel like the only chance (and it's still a chance, not anywhere close to a certainty) to put out the fire is to announce that the updated OGL will both not claim any ownership/royalties (basically, the same as before), but also include the word "irrevocable." That's the only way fans will have any faith that they're not just waiting another five years before they screw them over.

    I just doubt they'll succeed on their WIS roll and do such a thing.

    AsheramYoungFrey
  • OverkillengineOverkillengine Registered User regular
    I'm just wondering if it is too late to short their stock...

  • LttlefootLttlefoot Registered User regular
    b6w0i1e1yah1.jpeg

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Grendus wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    It's not as if there aren't like a jillion other tabletop RPGs out there to choose from. A ot of huge geeks play D&D, and even more are sentimentally attached to their memories of it. WoTC seem to be going about it exactly the right way to provoke some kind of popular free alternative.

    Well, perhaps not a *free* alternative, but Pathfinder released their own version of an OGL yesterday, likely mostly as a thumb in WotC’s eye, and boy does it skewer them :-)

    Paizo, the company behind Pathfinder, announced they were working on the Open RPG Creative license (ORC) along with other major third party publishers like Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. It's not out yet, they just announced it in the same way that many of the major third party content creators announced they were working on their own systems.

    Also, Pathfinder 1e and 2e are both free. Paizo sells the books, minis, battlemaps, standalone adventures and adventure paths, etc but all the rules (including all of the classes, spells, monsters, feats, items... basically everything) are free on Archive of Nethys. They even have a bunch of free adventures available on their website.

    Paizo is basically the embodiment of "the first hit is free". The books, adventures, and adventure paths are all excellent, I highly recommend them, but the rules being free makes the buy in very light for groups hesitant about switching.

    Edit:
    I did see a news headline come across my feed this morning that WotC might be walking it back already due to how staggeringly unpopular it was. But I can't find it anymore.

    They decided to delay the announcement. Technically they never announced the OGL 1.1 so there's nothing to walk back. But they also haven't denounced the rumors, which makes them far more credible. If they really didn't intend to do this, they would have come out and said they intended to release D&Done under the OGL 1.0. They just think they can wait out the internet ragestorm.

    But I don't think it will work. The issue isn't the players, it's the publishers. Many of the highly regarded third party publishers for 5e have jumped ship, they don't want to spend the time creating content for this new system if WotC is going to shake them down and reserve the right to take their stuff at any time with no recourse.

    Yep the new OGL is basically "WoTC can take all the revenue - and that's not profit, all the gross revenue - from any D&D related commercial activity, and the only thing stopping them from doing it is not wanting to do it today". It's a ludicrous liability to expect any commercial venture to take on. They might just as well say that commercial licensing is ended, and no further 3rd party products or services using their IP are authorised. Same effect.

    This is WoTC hearing the fable of "The Goose That Laid Golden Eggs" and thinking "hmmm I bet they saved several pennies a week on goose food by doing that".

    Andy JoedennisGiantGeek2020YoungFreyAegeriThawmus
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    ironzerg
  • MatevMatev Cero Miedo Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Not necessarily. It was good for rebuilding good will and ubiquity in D&D as a brand after getting kicked around hard by WoD in the 90s, just like using the OGL for 5e helped D&D regain mindshare after 4e. Like, it's not a bad thing if you want to make your brand the only brand normies think about when it comes to your field, so long as you're willing to accept some other folks are going to find success under that umbrella.

    The problem is they weren't happy enough with the ubiquity and the reasonable growth they were getting from it. The execs see the success of 3pp and go "How do we get all of that? I gotta make next quarter look stellar so I can cash out my stock at stupid levels." It's never enough, their dragon sickness keeps whispering to them.

    In their haste to try and subsume Paizo and prevent others from going that route, they've created another TTRPG big bang and made a million more Paizos in the bleakest self-fulfilling prophecy.

    What's worse is even if they did say "Our B, we'll never do that shit again" and then publicly sacked their C-Suite as the ultimate mea culpa, it still wouldn't be enough. They've broken the trust of the playerbase. People are cancelling D&D Beyond subscriptions in droves to vote with their wallets, and inertia being what it is, a good deal of them won't be coming back. The fact this is all self-manufactured is staggering and should be a cautionary tale for business school students until the sun goes out.

    "Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
    Hail Hydra
    dennisQuidV1mfurlionGiantGeek2020doompookyMan in the MistsYoungFreyAegeriMoridin889CrimeRobotCommander ZoomOverkillengine
  • RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Every edition of D&D has outsold the previous one. Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e, but it didn't stop them from making increased profits, popularity, and brand loyalty. 5e sold even better than that. D&D thrived with the OGL and they might actually die without it. If there's anything that WotC did wrong, it's refusing to address the market it already had under the OGL

    Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
    QuidMatevTofystedethGiantGeek2020AegeriMoridin889CrimeRobotCommander Zoom
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    Matev wrote: »
    The problem is they weren't happy enough with the ubiquity and the reasonable growth they were getting from it. The execs see the success of 3pp and go "How do we get all of that? I gotta make next quarter look stellar so I can cash out my stock at stupid levels." It's never enough, their dragon sickness keeps whispering to them.

    Wish I could wave a magic wand and make any stock or stock options given not be redeemable for 20 years. So that you don't want short term growth, but real sustainable long term success.

    MatevRingodoompookyMan in the MistsAegeriMoridin889Commander ZoomSmrtnik
  • OverkillengineOverkillengine Registered User regular
    edited January 18
    Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e...(snipped for brevity)

    ...Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous


    I'd argue 4E itself had more to do with its own lack of longevity than any competitors. They just benefited from 4E feeling like it was trying to force players to play a Class instead of a Character.

    Overkillengine on
  • LttlefootLttlefoot Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    Matev wrote: »
    The problem is they weren't happy enough with the ubiquity and the reasonable growth they were getting from it. The execs see the success of 3pp and go "How do we get all of that? I gotta make next quarter look stellar so I can cash out my stock at stupid levels." It's never enough, their dragon sickness keeps whispering to them.

    Wish I could wave a magic wand and make any stock or stock options given not be redeemable for 20 years. So that you don't want short term growth, but real sustainable long term success.

    This sort of exists. Present value of a company is affected by any decisions that will affect its future. In Basic Economics, Sowell gives 2 examples. A 90 year old man plants an orchard in a field he owns - the field is immediately worth more even though the man is dead before any of the trees are grown. Or, a bus company resfuses to raise fares, so they won't be able to afford to repair / replace old buses when they wear out, so the company is immediately worth less. (Whereas if they were government-run buses, when they wear out people might blame the new government, not the old one that refused to raise the fares)

    So what's up with the OGL? One possibility is that the execs just made bad decisions - they're only human. Another possibility is they foresee that tabletop gaming will lose popularity and be replaced by VR and AI, so it's riskier to plan for long term growth than to cash out

  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Every edition of D&D has outsold the previous one. Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e, but it didn't stop them from making increased profits, popularity, and brand loyalty. 5e sold even better than that. D&D thrived with the OGL and they might actually die without it. If there's anything that WotC did wrong, it's refusing to address the market it already had under the OGL

    Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous

    Dangit Ringo, complaining about them squandering the 4e video game license is my thing!

    steam_sig.png
    RingoGiantGeek2020
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e...(snipped for brevity)

    ...Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous


    I'd argue 4E itself had more to do with its own lack of longevity than any competitors. They just benefited from 4E feeling like it was trying to force players to play a Class instead of a Character.

    The only thing ever stops you from playing your character is you and your GM. 4e was very rules heavy and gamey but like 99% existed only in the context of combat. Compared to something like 3.5 it was pretty light on specifics of what you could do and how socially, and that's mostly where character lives.

    And even within the combat related stuff there were so many many options you could add tons of flavor to your characters. I made a half orc bard that played a big kettle drum and all his powers were sonic damage and debuffs. For a one shot at a game night I made a pair of characters for me and my ex. She wanted to play a fire wizard, so I gave her all fire spells. Since the fire spells all damage everything in the area, for my character I made her a bodyguard, a fire genasi warlord. So his whole shtick was he would wade into a pile of enemies, force them to clump on him, and then tell "let em have it!"

    steam_sig.png
    Rhesus PositiveMatevRingoGiantGeek2020QuidAegeriHexmage-PASneaksCommander Zoom
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    Lttlefoot wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Matev wrote: »
    The problem is they weren't happy enough with the ubiquity and the reasonable growth they were getting from it. The execs see the success of 3pp and go "How do we get all of that? I gotta make next quarter look stellar so I can cash out my stock at stupid levels." It's never enough, their dragon sickness keeps whispering to them.

    Wish I could wave a magic wand and make any stock or stock options given not be redeemable for 20 years. So that you don't want short term growth, but real sustainable long term success.

    This sort of exists. Present value of a company is affected by any decisions that will affect its future. In Basic Economics, Sowell gives 2 examples. A 90 year old man plants an orchard in a field he owns - the field is immediately worth more even though the man is dead before any of the trees are grown. Or, a bus company resfuses to raise fares, so they won't be able to afford to repair / replace old buses when they wear out, so the company is immediately worth less. (Whereas if they were government-run buses, when they wear out people might blame the new government, not the old one that refused to raise the fares)

    Nah, too easy for them to fudge the math and make grandiose claims of how something will play out (e.g. AOL/Time Warner, HBO Max/Discovery+ are a couple of examples, just on the merger side of things).

    Matev
  • JeixJeix Registered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Every edition of D&D has outsold the previous one. Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e, but it didn't stop them from making increased profits, popularity, and brand loyalty. 5e sold even better than that. D&D thrived with the OGL and they might actually die without it. If there's anything that WotC did wrong, it's refusing to address the market it already had under the OGL

    Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous

    I think the Neverwinter MMO was based on 4e

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    Jeix wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Every edition of D&D has outsold the previous one. Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e, but it didn't stop them from making increased profits, popularity, and brand loyalty. 5e sold even better than that. D&D thrived with the OGL and they might actually die without it. If there's anything that WotC did wrong, it's refusing to address the market it already had under the OGL

    Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous

    I think the Neverwinter MMO was based on 4e

    Based on the setting, refers to some subclasses, has a few game mechanics that were inspired by 4e, but it does not use the 4e rules at all: it is a MMORPG with action-adventure-like combat, where 4e is a turn based strategy game.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited January 17
    Aldo wrote: »
    Jeix wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Every edition of D&D has outsold the previous one. Pathfinder may have cut into the longevity of 4e, but it didn't stop them from making increased profits, popularity, and brand loyalty. 5e sold even better than that. D&D thrived with the OGL and they might actually die without it. If there's anything that WotC did wrong, it's refusing to address the market it already had under the OGL

    Not a single video game was made using the 4e rules. That's ridiculous

    I think the Neverwinter MMO was based on 4e

    Based on the setting, refers to some subclasses, has a few game mechanics that were inspired by 4e, but it does not use the 4e rules at all: it is a MMORPG with action-adventure-like combat, where 4e is a turn based strategy game.

    To put a bit more detail to it, 4E is a turn-based tactics RPG with a heavy emphasis on movement, multi-target attacks, AoEs, and out of turn interrupts and reactions. There are lots of player and enemy abilities that allow characters to move out of turn, force opponents to move to another location with pushing or pulling, allow allies to move, teleportation, etc. The intent was for players to use these abilities in synch with each other to set-up for AoEs, heals, damaging zones, threatening reach, etc, and the fact that so many abilities triggered out of someone's normal turn meant you couldn't just do your turn and look on your phone or whatever until the next one; you had to pay attention to watch for a set-up ability to trigger if one that concerned you was in play. These triggers could be very specific, too; I remember one power that triggered when you took damage from an enemy AoE that allowed you to teleport out of it and reduce the damage you took.

    It was also notable for being the edition that, by its end, had more attack options for Fighters than spells for Wizards. You might, for example, get a Daily power that let you hit an enemy, push it back, charge to its new position, and knock it prone all as one action. Or you might take one that hits every enemy within 10 feet, dazes them, and knocks them prone. There was a crazy amount of options; the 5E Battle Master Fighter with its short list of Manuevers is a pale imitation in comparision.

    I've seen it claimed that it would actually difficult to program an AI for a tactics video game with so much strategic movement that worked well; closest I've seen is the Banner Saga so far, which while it does have some features like that still doesn't get anywhere close to how ubiquitous such abilities were in 4E.

    Though its a draw for me and others, I could definitely see this level of tactical complexity being a turn of for others and a reason 4E didn't do better. Still, when I DM 5E I often add a lot of 4E-inspired homebrew I've created to use for monsters or to give to players as abilities for magic items. I think in my next campaign I'll also let everyone who gets a Fighting Style also get the Martial Adept feat for free so they can take some Battle Master Fighter manuevers for more tatical options.

    Hexmage-PA on
    Ringo
  • GrendusGrendus Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think the success Paizo has gotten from releasing a homebrewed 3.5 to compete with 4E, helping kill D&D 4E by stoking the fires of the edition wars, and then shamelessly copying the edition they helped kill with Pathfinder 2E is a good indicator that the original OGL was a spectacularly dumb move on 2000's WotC's part.

    Quite the opposite. Killing the OGL was the reason Paizo made Pathfinder in the first place.

    Paizo Publishing was created as a spin off by former WotC execs to handle Dragon Magazine. When WotC decided to go with 4e, they cut their contract with Paizo and decided to do the publishing in house. Now, originally Paizo's plan was to keep running as a D&D fan magazine and just go full 3PP. The first two Adventure Paths they released IIRC were set in Greyhawk. But with the development cycle on 4e taking so long, they decided to release the World of Golarion as its own setting similar to Greyhawk, Faerun, Ebberon, Ravenloft, Exandria, etc. Their plan was entirely to convert Golarion to a 4e setting once WotC released the new rules.

    Paizo only made the Pathfinder Role Playing Game because the GSL was so bad that nobody wanted to make 4e stuff. If they had stuck with the OGL, Paizo would likely be more like Kobold Press releasing popular and well received homebrew classes and adventure paths for their own setting. They only made their own system because WotC made it unprofitable to make stuff for them.

    The designers behind 3e/3.5e/5e releasing under the OGL 1.0 understood that "the tide raises all ships". Sure, WotC created their biggest competitors, but they absolutely dwarf Paizo, Kobold Press, MDCM, Green Ronin, etc. Like... literal orders of magnitude bigger than them. The presence of these companies was a good thing for D&D because it means there's a rich ecosystem that's entirely focused around their product, and more importantly they aren't making competing products. You can't use Kobold Press' material without the 5e rules, so just having these third party suppliers constantly pushing out quality supplements to your own product (often serving smaller niches that might not be profitable for you to do yourself) strengthens your own brand.

    And now it's unlikely they'll win the publisher's trust back. It remains to be seen, maybe the players have a lot of brand loyalty, but I suspect that most of the DM's already have other systems they want to switch to and just couldn't convince their players to do so. DM's tend to be the Übernerd in the group and only run D&D because it's a lot easier than getting people to agree to play Mouse Guard or Planet Mercenary. But a new edition and some of the possible implications we've seen leaked (requiring a subscription, subscription tiers with the lowest level not allowing homebrew, etc) could be the last straw to making the jump, especially if they were already using third party products from developers who are now publishing their own systems.

    TamdrikOverkillengineAldofurlionAegeriJeixRingo
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited January 18
    Grendus wrote: »
    Paizo only made the Pathfinder Role Playing Game because the GSL was so bad that nobody wanted to make 4e stuff. If they had stuck with the OGL, Paizo would likely be more like Kobold Press releasing popular and well received homebrew classes and adventure paths for their own setting. They only made their own system because WotC made it unprofitable to make stuff for them.

    The designers behind 3e/3.5e/5e releasing under the OGL 1.0 understood that "the tide raises all ships". Sure, WotC created their biggest competitors, but they absolutely dwarf Paizo, Kobold Press, MDCM,

    I read a write-up on the history of the OGL recently that made the claim Wotc and Hasbro wanted to go back on the OGL nearly immediately.

    The Alexandrian: A Brief History of the OGL.

    3.5 was intended to make the early 3E OGL books incompatible and undermine their sales, while the GSL was created not only to undermine the OGL but also because 4E's designers were afraid that Hasbro would just decide to mothball D&D if it didn't hit a certain level of revenue (4E may in fact have even been partially designed to make it difficult for 3PPs that decided to use the GSL to design for, because even the GSL wasn't something Hasbro/WotC really wanted).

    Hexmage-PA on
  • OverkillengineOverkillengine Registered User regular

    The only thing ever stops you from playing your character is you and your GM.

    I mean sure, we could Rule 0 everything to hell and back. Always could, regardless of the edition. Or we could just bail for a ruleset that felt less hostile to our playstyle. Which we did. Not like there is a lack of competitors out there.

    AldoRhesus Positive
  • dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/dd-maker-promises-to-get-player-feedback-for-coming-open-license-update/?comments=1

    My favorite part was the section title "We’re sorry (that you noticed)". Says it all about their response, really. Bunch of bullshit about how it was "just a draft to get feedback", even though they didn't ask a single person for feedback about it. More like "just a test to see if we could swap the idol for the bag of sand." Sorry, WotC, but there's no off switch for the boulder.

  • OverkillengineOverkillengine Registered User regular
    edited January 19
    Yeah it's a little late for them to realize that they do not actually have the sort of captive market that they thought that they had. If they want to monetize things, they will have to offer a commensurate service in return, or the community will simply swap to competitors or the piracy cannons will go brrrrrrrt.


    It's sort of the drawback of offering a product/service that is almost purely non physical, and a non essential product as well. The only leverage you have is offering a better product/service, and none of their OGL changes counts as that.

    Overkillengine on
  • LttlefootLttlefoot Registered User regular
    Why did the bag of sand not work anyway? (In raiders of the lost ark)

Sign In or Register to comment.