D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[Remathilis]

Pathfinder 2 is not built to be that game and its community....
...let's say the PF2 community is too hostile to houserules/homebrew for that to work.

It would end up playing into Hasbro's hands.

The irony that Paizo's initial success was built on capitalizing with 4e's problem in that exact area is one of life's greatest twists of fate.

 

[Minigiant]

The irony that Paizo's initial success was built on capitalizing with 4e's problem in that exact area is one of life's greatest twists of fate.

Ironic.

Unfortunately that is the nature of TTRPGs and fans of niche interests in general

Fans are critical and willing to do it themselves for the Big Brand.

But when it comes to the smaller companies that are overprotective, laudatory, gatekeepy in thought but want as many people to join as possible to be the new Big Brand

 

[mamba]

it feels very weird that the company that prided itself on keeping traditional D&D alive is now itself abandoning much of that legacy. (So much so, I would hesitate to consider PF2R and D&D5e anything but distant cousins rather than the brothers from different mothers they were about a decade ago)

PF2 and PF2R are almost the same distance from 5e. If you consider PF2R and 5e distant cousins, then so should be PF2 and 5e

 

[Remathilis]

PF2 and PF2R are almost the same distance from 5e. If you consider PF2R and 5e distant cousins, then so should be PF2 and 5e

Mechanically I would agree, but the OGL scrub has changed so much of the lore that it feels even further away. The renamed spells, the retired monsters, etc. I get the need, but it does feel that one of the key components to PF1's success (it looked familiar to long time D&D players) isn't there anymore. Which for a lot of people was a major complaint about 4e that led them to PF in the first place.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Paizo just learned the exact lesson I predicted they'd learn when PF1 came out: you can't just cling to the same mechanics and decades old lore forever an expect to draw in enough fresh players and keep the interest of the design team to stay afloat. The Remaster is just the result of an external push forcing the last big jump they needed to make.

 

[Retreater]

Paizo just learned the exact lesson I predicted they'd learn when PF1 came out: you can't just cling to the same mechanics and decades old lore forever an expect to draw in enough fresh players and keep the interest of the design team to stay afloat. The Remaster is just the result of an external push forcing the last big jump they needed to make.

I don't think it's healthy for any system to not innovate its design. Even games that have remained very similar - such as Call of Cthulhu - have improved and modernized their design. (I think the 7th edition is a great improvement.)
The more I'm reading through A5e, the more I see it as an evolution of 5e. (I've been stuck inside with the set during the Arctic blast weekend.)
I'm reading it as I watch my wife play BG3, and we're having some interesting discussions of how to evolve 5e. (Unfortunately, I don't think 2024 D&D is going big enough for me.)

 

[Faolyn]

If something like that was to have happened, it would have been a mass 3pp exodus to Pathfinder 2. Paizo was again in a good position to profit from WotC's stumble, but the 5e community mostly splintered into a bunch of in-house 5e clones rather than a clean break to PF2.

Um, it kind of did. Paizo sold out of eight months worth of their PH in a mere two weeks. Savage Worlds was also sold out because of the OGL, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other companies did as well.

 

[Remathilis]

Um, it kind of did. Paizo sold out of eight months worth of their PH in a mere two weeks. Savage Worlds was also sold out because of the OGL, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other companies did as well.

But 3pps like Kobold Press didn't drop 5e to start supporting PF. I'd be interested in how many publishers dropped 5e for PF as a result of the OGL debacle.

 

[Retreater]

But 3pps like Kobold Press didn't drop 5e to start supporting PF. I'd be interested in how many publishers dropped 5e for PF as a result of the OGL debacle.

Not that I'm aware of. I think some YouTubers switched to PF content temporarily. Most companies seemed to either keep producing 5e or coming out with their own games.

 

[The Scythian]

One of the risks inherent in running a business is encountering those operating in bad faith. Or even those operating under a belief that they are operating in good faith, but aren't. Or those that are operating in good faith, but in a situation, for whatever reason, that someone has to lose.

In other words, be prepared. Part of your responsibility if you are running a business, big or small.

Maybe that was malicious on Hasbro's part. Maybe they didn't think of that. Either way, it doesn't matter if you are running a company. Be prepared for every eventuality. Do right by your employees by being prepared. It's part of your job. The world will not be fair to you. Sometimes the reasons are justified. Sometimes the reasons are that you are dealing with a complete scumbag. Either way, don't complain. Figure it out. If you are responsible for the livelihoods of others, I would hope that you step up and figure out this problem instead of sitting down and complaining about it.

This feels like an excuse for those employing others not putting in the work to look after their employees. You know, actively being a good person, instead of complaining after the fact about all the bad people out there.

I'm putting two quotes from two different responses together because they're related.

Nobody who runs a business goes into every contract assuming that the other party is a bad actor. In general, even outside of running a business, people don't enter into contracts assuming that the other party is a bad actor. Obviously, people are going to attempt to enter into contracts that they benefit from, whether it's signing up for the Criterion Channel or renting a theater space to put on a play or a publisher getting books printed, but they don't prepare for the possibility that the Criterion Channel might take their money but not provide service, or that the theater owner will attempt to unilaterally dissolve their contract, or that printers will arbitrarily decide to not ship products they are contractually obligated to provide.

That's because the whole reason we have contracts is so that people can conduct their business with a degree of security.

And no. Business owners aren't bad people if they don't have plans for what to do if another party arbitrarily decides to renege on their contract. If a producer rents a theater to put on a theatrical production, they're not a bad person if they don't book a second theater in case the owner of the first one decides to renege on their contract. That's just silly. (And where would it end? Because maybe both the first and second theater owners might attempt to dissolve their contracts, so the product would need to book a third theater, ad infinitum.)

At this point, what you're saying is so divorced from reality that I have to wonder if you're trolling or engaged in some kind of bit.

I see your point. But look at it from their point of view. They entered an agreement (that they should have been more on top of at the time) that they felt was hurting them. And legitimately so. At face value, this agreement looks like a terrible deal for Hasbro. That opinion was misguided in my opinion and Hasbro should have kept with the status quo, for many reasons (although the outcome of this debacle did benefit smaller publishers in the long run, so maybe this nonsense was good for them, perversely).

If you had signed a cell phone contract, with all kinds of sweet benefits, but later realised that as part of your contract, you were being asked to share your number with telemarketers or some equally horrible thing... would you not want the opportunity to renegotiate that contract?

I see a double standard emerging.

On the one hand, you imply that third-party publishers are bad people (or at least not "actively being good [people]") if they enter into a contract with WotC in good faith, abide by the terms of that contract, and expect WotC to do the same. They should be prepared in case WotC acts in bad faith, and if they're not, it's on them.

On the other hand, you keep asking us to look at things from the point of view of WotC and put their motivation and actions in the best possible light. If they acted in bad faither, well... The deal was unfair! Of course, they wanted to renegotiate! Wouldn't anyone?

First of all, the theory that WotC saw the deal as unfair, or felt that they were unfairly saddled with it, is something that people who decided to defend WotC came up with back in late 2022 or early 2023, presumably in an attempt to garner sympathy for them (which is what I believe you to be doing here). To the best of my knowledge, WotC has never claimed that they attempted to revoke the OGL because they felt it was unfair.

But, yeah, it's possible that they felt it was unfair. However, it's also possible that they saw a bunch of successful OGL-based crowdfunding campaigns and told their lawyers to find a way to let them wet their beaks. There are also other possible motivations, such as the ones that they actually did put forward and virtually no one bought, like not wanting third parties to make D&D NFTs. I see no reason to privilege the theory that WotC felt aggrieved by the contract's unfairness over any of those other potential motivations.

Second, I don't think their motivation matters as much as what they ended up doing. Which was not, as you have claimed, renegotiating the OGL. What they actually did was attempt to revoke the existing OGL and replace it with a completely different license, one that was open in name only, and they planned to do it in an underhanded way. If things had gone as intended, the vast majority of existing licensees would have learned about the new license just seven business days before they were expected to agree to it and the old one was revoked.

Perversely, WotC intended to use a clause in the OGL intended to protect licensees from exactly what they were planning. (And before you ask, no, I'm not a lawyer, but a FAQ about the OGL that was up on WotC's own website for a number of years and Ryan Dancey, the architect of the agreement, both made it clear that the language concerning authorized versions of the license was intended specifically to allow licensees to use earlier versions of the agreement in case WotC attempted to change the terms.)