The Campaign Builder's Guild

I like the areas of knowledge

Quote from: Elemental ElfEvery class is coming with Paths (though some call it by different names) that essentially are little packets of fluff-tied-with-crunch that help individualize your character and give him a place in the world. Each path comes with a few unique abilities that tie into the fluff. For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks). The cool thing about these Paths is that, it seems to me, it would be fairly easy for WotC to release new Paths, thus eliminating the burning need to release a ton of new classes (like in 3.5 how we wound up with the Fighter, the Knight and 2 Samurai, all of whom are just Fighters with a bit of fluff and mechanical specialization).

These sound an awful lot like Pathfinder's Archetypes.  Not that there's anything wrong with that (I like Archetypes fine and I think they're great, in a class-system, at further distinguishing individual characters), although along with the ideals, flaws, and inspiration stuff which, as sparkletwist points out, seem very similar to Fate's Aspects, Compels, and Fate Points, it makes me feel a bit like the developers are lifting ideas from their competition - which given Wizards' hyper-guarded exclusivity towards its own mechanics these days seems a bit hypocritical.

For me, it makes me wonder what Next could really offer me that Pathfinder can't.  Given how enormous a disappointment 4th edition was for me, Wizards has a lot of ground to make up to win me back.  Offering up a different version of Pathfinder's own mechanics isn't really a step in the right direction.  I think, frankly, that any new edition really needs to justify its own existence pretty fundamentally, otherwise it just feels like people are releasing a new edition to try and make everyone buy new player's handbooks and monster manuals and whatnot.

Quote from: Elemental Elf
For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks).

I think the Gladiator mechanics for Combat Superiority and manoeuvres are so fundamentally solid and flexible that they should just be a core feature of the Fighter class - you describe a manoeuvre to the GM in fiction terms, they choose which Ability score it's targeting and pick an appropriate consequence (gain advantage, knock prone, reduce speed) from a set list.

For the first time in my D&D experience I am actually potentially excited by the thought of playing a Fighter, and that is saying something.

To be fair, WotC used the idea originally with Kits in 2E and Class Variants in the Unearthed Arcana and Player's Handbook 2 (and in an odd sense, the idea of sub-classes in AD&D 1st edition). IIRC, there were some other third party books from the 3.x era that had mechanics like Archetypes as well though I am totally flubbing on which ones (read way too many 3rd party 3.x books over the years).

5E Paths are baked right into the class, they are not an optional rule (in the way Archetypes are). It's not exactly a new mechanic or concept, just one that wasn't overly pushed in 3.x (which favored whole new classes over expanding existing ones (hence why we have 2 samurai, a Fighter and a Knight, all of which are - ostensibly - just builds of the same core class).

"Hyper-guarded exclusivity towards its own mechanics..."

Wait, what? Sure 4E wasn't added to the OGL but it did have a separate license that allowed 3rd party companies to make 4E compatible content (I actually own a few of the books). It's not like WotC went from the OGL to a completely closed system, it just shifted from an unregulated to an over-regulated mess.

I'm not sure what 5E will offer anyone because I don't know what the end product will be. It's really no different than me holding the Pathfinder's Alpha document and thinking, "Do I really need this in my life?"

From the looks of it, 5E will be a rules light system base (compared to 3.PF and 4E) and possess a solid ability for customization. The core classes will not be balanced in the same way 4E was but the gulf between the haves and the have-nots will definitely be much narrower than in 3.PF. The system will not rely on Magic Items the way 3.PF and 4E had (to the point where the Designers are saying you don't strictly need magic items to have a successful high level character). Minis and Boards are not a required element of the game. The game will focus much more heavily on Role Playing, as seen through flavorful in-class paths and Backgrounds (i.e. Themes from 4E).

To be honest however, WotC is kind of damned here because any great ideas they have will just be lifted out of Next and slapped into Pathfinder, so, really, until that game becomes as bloated or 3.x did and/or Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released, you probably won't have a reason to switch. And why should you? You're happy.

Having said that even if I wasn't into D&D 5E, as a fan of Campaign Settings, I would still buy any and all books WotC produced (which, apparently, will be a lot (Mearls is definitely hinting at a 2E AD&D era style focus on a plethora of amazing settings).  

Quote from: HippopotamusDundee

Quote from: Elemental Elf
For example the Fighter's paths are Gladiator (think Spartacus style combat), the Knight (think Knight in 3.5 (complete with bonuses on CHA checks) and Warrior (the most generic, gaining bonuses to crits and awareness checks).

I think the Gladiator mechanics for Combat Superiority and manoeuvres are so fundamentally solid and flexible that they should just be a core feature of the Fighter class - you describe a manoeuvre to the GM in fiction terms, they choose which Ability score it's targeting and pick an appropriate consequence (gain advantage, knock prone, reduce speed) from a set list.

For the first time in my D&D experience I am actually potentially excited by the thought of playing a Fighter, and that is saying something.

Having talked with others online, I am in general agreement. WotC can make other cool mechanics for the Fighter but those Gladiator abilities are really sweet. I want that for every fighter.

Quote from: Elemental ElfWait, what? Sure 4E wasn't added to the OGL but it did have a separate license that allowed 3rd party companies to make 4E compatible content (I actually own a few of the books). It's not like WotC went from the OGL to a completely closed system, it just shifted from an unregulated to an over-regulated mess.

Well... this.   You said it exactly: they went from unregulated (OGL) to very highly regulated (GSL).  They literally went from having an open source system to an almost totally exclusive one.  They went from encouraging creativity - spawning tons of adventures, supplementary books, and campaign settings - by letting other people utilize their rules-set to a completely closed rule-set in which they only give out select licenses, which come with  a variety of provisos, strings, and prohibitions.  There's a handful of 4E compatible third party books, but it's nothing compared to the abundance of books that came ou for 3E from third parties.  Some were terrible, but some were excellent.  It was up to consumers, rather than Wizards, to decide which was which.

Quote from: Elemental ElfTo be honest however, WotC is kind of damned here because any great ideas they have will just be lifted out of Next and slapped into Pathfinder, so, really, until that game becomes as bloated or 3.x did and/or Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released, you probably won't have a reason to switch

I think this is very unlikely, unless said mechanics are fully compatible with 3.X/Pathfinder already, which also strikes me as very unlikely.  Pathfinder's big shtick is compatability, and I'd wager that even if/when Pathfinder 2nd edition is released (at this point, there are only the very vaguest rumours) it'll be highly backwards-compatible.  The developers at Paizo realize that people don't want to have to have hundreds of dollars of gaming products rendered obsolete every few years.  Pathfinder didn't "lift" any ideas out of 4E (or perhaps it just didn't find any ideas worth taking?), so I find it fairly unlikely it'll start lifting mechanics from Next, especially if Next remains under the GSL, which seems probable.

Quote from: Elemental ElfMearls is definitely hinting at a 2E AD&D era style focus on a plethora of amazing settings

If this is true, this is really, really good news!  TSR produced some excellent settings in its twilight, and although the plethora of settings and campaign books probably didn't make sense from a business standpoint, some of TSR's campaign settings - Ravenloft and Planescape especially - are favorites of mine.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfWait, what? Sure 4E wasn't added to the OGL but it did have a separate license that allowed 3rd party companies to make 4E compatible content (I actually own a few of the books). It's not like WotC went from the OGL to a completely closed system, it just shifted from an unregulated to an over-regulated mess.

Well... this.   You said it exactly: they went from unregulated (OGL) to very highly regulated (GSL).  They literally went from having an open source system to an almost totally exclusive one.  They went from encouraging creativity - spawning tons of adventures, supplementary books, and campaign settings - by letting other people utilize their rules-set to a completely closed rule-set in which they only give out select licenses, which come with  a variety of provisos, strings, and prohibitions.  There's a handful of 4E compatible third party books, but it's nothing compared to the abundance of books that came ou for 3E from third parties.  Some were terrible, but some were excellent.  It was up to consumers, rather than Wizards, to decide which was which.

The 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfTo be honest however, WotC is kind of damned here because any great ideas they have will just be lifted out of Next and slapped into Pathfinder, so, really, until that game becomes as bloated or 3.x did and/or Pathfinder 2nd Edition is released, you probably won't have a reason to switch

I think this is very unlikely, unless said mechanics are fully compatible with 3.X/Pathfinder already, which also strikes me as very unlikely.  Pathfinder's big shtick is compatability, and I'd wager that even if/when Pathfinder 2nd edition is released (at this point, there are only the very vaguest rumours) it'll be highly backwards-compatible.  The developers at Paizo realize that people don't want to have to have hundreds of dollars of gaming products rendered obsolete every few years.  Pathfinder didn't "lift" any ideas out of 4E (or perhaps it just didn't find any ideas worth taking?), so I find it fairly unlikely it'll start lifting mechanics from Next, especially if Next remains under the GSL, which seems probable.

Actually, a lot of Pathfinder was directly inspired by the Paizo guys taking the stated design principles of 4E and molding them into their version of D&D. This is why dead levels are relatively rare (compared to 3.x); casters have At Will spells; previously weak classes get cool stuff; skills being simplified, encounter crafting was made easier; races being more balanced (or rather, the really bad ones not sucking so hard); the shift away from daily to round based abilities (ala Bardic Music and Rage); the simplification of non-attack actions (like grapple, trip, etc.); etc.

I don't mean that Paizo will just uplift a sub-system whole hog, rather they will take the best sub-systems and Paizo-ify them for their game. :)

Part of me hates new editions (especially incremental editions (what WotC did with Star Wars was practically criminal) but there is no arguing the fact that the  guys at Paizo have made the best selling RPG. I still find a lot of flaws in the system and those are tied to the fact that the system needs to be compatible with 3.5. I really think Paizo could design an amazing system if they could free themselves of the shackles of 3.5. I don't think it will happen soon but I do think it will be a larger change than the change from 3.5 to PF was (but they won't make the mistake of not including some kind of conversion guide (which, oddly enough, is a reason why a few of my friends refuse to play 4E (the lack of a conversion guide from 3.5 to 4E, that is)).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfMearls is definitely hinting at a 2E AD&D era style focus on a plethora of amazing settings

If this is true, this is really, really good news!  TSR produced some excellent settings in its twilight, and although the plethora of settings and campaign books probably didn't make sense from a business standpoint, some of TSR's campaign settings - Ravenloft and Planescape especially - are favorites of mine.

I really want all of the settings updated, from Spelljammer, to FR, to Dragonlance, to Eberron, to Greyhawk, to Ravenloft, to Planescape, to Al-Qadim, to Kara-Tur, to everything else. I am going to buy every setting book just so I can delve into those worlds and allow my imagination to soar.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x.

Maybe for the logo or whatever, but the GSL was terribly restrictive compared to the OGL. In particular, it was restrictive enough that major 3rd party publishers from the 3rd Edition days found it egregious and did not jump on board. I mean, Pathfinder basically exists because Paizo couldn't stomach the GSL, for example. I can't really blame them, considering the amount of control over your product that the GSL gave WotC-- for example, you can't use words that the official 4e materials have defined one way to mean something else, and you can't do that even if your material used the word that way first.

With the d20 stuff, if they revoked your "logo" rights or whatever, you could keep publishing anyway under the OGL. Under the GSL, they can just shut you down. A lot of companies didn't feel like taking that risk.

Quote from: Elemental ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).

Yeah, exactly what sparkletwist said.  I'd disagree that 3.5 burned the third party community.  3.5 is almost totally backwards-compatible with any 3.0 product.  A lot of 3.5's changes were in the specific wording of things; it didn't make sweeping changes.  When I switched over to 3.5 I was totally able to keep using 3.0 sourcebooks and adventures.  And 3.5 was published under the OGL as well, so third party publishers could easily switch over.  The GSL is case-by-case: you have to pay Wizards and get a license for every book you make.  You also have to basically drop publishing anything for 3.5 or other stuff the OGL.  This is what I meant by "hyper-guarded."

The reality is that the GSL is ludicrously restriuctive compared to the OGL.  It smacks of corporate paranoia, greed, and the utmost contempt for players and publishers alike.

This old article, published at the time of 4th edition's release, sums it up nicely.  Here's another one specifically discussing the "poison pill" clauses of the GSL.  This article, also posted at around the same time, aptly predicts exactly how stupid a move the GSL was from a business perspective as well as a creative one.

Quote from: Elemental ElfActually, a lot of Pathfinder was directly inspired by the Paizo guys taking the stated design principles of 4E and molding them into their version of D&D. This is why dead levels are relatively rare (compared to 3.x); casters have At Will spells; previously weak classes get cool stuff; skills being simplified, encounter crafting was made easier; races being more balanced (or rather, the really bad ones not sucking so hard); the shift away from daily to round based abilities (ala Bardic Music and Rage); the simplification of non-attack actions (like grapple, trip, etc.); etc.

I'm fairly sure that the Pathfinder people arrived at the decision to do things like remove dead levels more or less independently of 4th edition.  There were obvious fiddly bits/problems with 3.5 that clearly needed tweaking.   The system cleaves far, far closer to 3.5 than 4th edition in almost every respect; it's just a polished 3.5.  Skills aren't hugely simplified much compared to 3.5, for example. It eschews the vast majority of 4e's changes - no healing surges, no encounter/daily powers, keeps vancian magic, keeps full mutliclassing, keeps a skill point system, etc etc.  I'd argue it doesn't really borrow that many design principles from 4th; after all 4th's guiding design principle (stated or not) is clearly to emphasize a tactical miniature wargame.  There might be a few very minor things from 4th that influenced Pathfinder, but the whole point of Pathfinder is that it isn't 4th edition.

I'd be happy if Paizo released new rules for stuff, but I'd much rather they just designed a totally new game rather than Pathfinder 2.0, and publish both.  The great thing about Pathfinder is that it still works with the reams of material produced by Pazio, Wizards, and others for 3.X.  If Paizo burned that bridge, they'd be taking a pretty big risk and would likely alienate a lot of fans who stuck with them over Wizards precisely because they kept things backwards-compatible.

Since we have no concrete information on any of this, speculation does seem premature, however.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).

Yeah, exactly what sparkletwist said.  I'd disagree that 3.5 burned the third party community.  3.5 is almost totally backwards-compatible with any 3.0 product.  A lot of 3.5's changes were in the specific wording of things; it didn't make sweeping changes.  When I switched over to 3.5 I was totally able to keep using 3.0 sourcebooks and adventures.  And 3.5 was published under the OGL as well, so third party publishers could easily switch over.  The GSL is case-by-case: you have to pay Wizards and get a license for every book you make.  You also have to basically drop publishing anything for 3.5 or other stuff the OGL.  This is what I meant by "hyper-guarded."

The reality is that the GSL is ludicrously restriuctive compared to the OGL.  It smacks of corporate paranoia, greed, and the utmost contempt for players and publishers alike.

Do other major publishers like White Wolf or Green Ronin allow anything more? I am unaware of it if any other major company allowed its game system to be freely developed for.

Green Ronin certainly does for at least some of their products.

Here's their licensing info on Mutants and Masterminds, for example.  For both print publications and PDFs it's a totally free license used in conjunction with the OGL requiring no approval from Green Ronin whatsoever, useable by anyone.  Freeport is published using Pathfinder, which is OGL.  True 20 is obviously OGL.

I'm not sure about their stuff for A Song of Ice and Fire, DC universe, or Dragon Age, but there might be some serious limitations placed on them there due to other copyrights - i.e. it may be problematic to let people do their own stuff with ASoIaF roleplaying because it violates various trademarks, and the owners of the copyrights for those properties may have been reluctant to let Green Ronin allow open use of the rules even divorced from specific product identity.

Paizo, obviously, uses the OGL, and it's definitely a major publisher.

Frog God Games, who acquired Necromancer Games, uses the OGL.

Some of Mongoose Publishing's games are closed, but others, like Traveller, are open.

Goblinoid Games (who produce Labyrinth Lord, one of the biggest OSR systems) use the OGL.

Evil Hat, though not as big or old as some of the others, is likewise open.

I don't think White Wolf licenses many of their games, but on the other hand they never have.  If Wizards of the Coast had never used any kind of open-game license the GSL wouldn't be nearly as upsetting.

Quote from: SteerpikeI don't think White Wolf licenses many of their games, but on the other hand they never have.

The thing about White Wolf is that pretty much everyone acknowledges they have (generally) awesome fluff and (generally) awful crunch. Anything you'd want to lift from them would be considered "Product Identity" and wouldn't be covered by the OGL anyway.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Elemental_ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x.

Maybe for the logo or whatever, but the GSL was terribly restrictive compared to the OGL. In particular, it was restrictive enough that major 3rd party publishers from the 3rd Edition days found it egregious and did not jump on board. I mean, Pathfinder basically exists because Paizo couldn't stomach the GSL, for example. I can't really blame them, considering the amount of control over your product that the GSL gave WotC-- for example, you can't use words that the official 4e materials have defined one way to mean something else, and you can't do that even if your material used the word that way first.

With the d20 stuff, if they revoked your "logo" rights or whatever, you could keep publishing anyway under the OGL. Under the GSL, they can just shut you down. A lot of companies didn't feel like taking that risk.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfThe 4E license wasn't *that* restrictive when compared to the requirements for the d20 logo in 3.x. I think the market had largely realized the money wasn't in supporting WotC's game but in supporting their own systems and ideas, which we all know is the path to greater and more stable success (especially after the way WotC burned the 3rd party community by releasing 3.5).

Yeah, exactly what sparkletwist said.  I'd disagree that 3.5 burned the third party community.  3.5 is almost totally backwards-compatible with any 3.0 product.  A lot of 3.5's changes were in the specific wording of things; it didn't make sweeping changes.  When I switched over to 3.5 I was totally able to keep using 3.0 sourcebooks and adventures.  And 3.5 was published under the OGL as well, so third party publishers could easily switch over.  The GSL is case-by-case: you have to pay Wizards and get a license for every book you make.  You also have to basically drop publishing anything for 3.5 or other stuff the OGL.  This is what I meant by "hyper-guarded."

The reality is that the GSL is ludicrously restrictive compared to the OGL.  It smacks of corporate paranoia, greed, and the utmost contempt for players and publishers alike.

Any material generated with the d20 logo had to be 100% compatible with D&D and not include a few specific rules. If WotC altered the license (which it could do at will) the publisher had 30 days to cure the problem, which was retroactive to all previously published books under the license. WotC had the right to stop any publisher from putting that logo on their books. If WotC revoked your license, then you needed to recall all of your books and destroy them.

Since Game Mechanics are uncopywritable, you can easily produce compatible material for any edition of D&D, be it 1E AD&D or 4E. Kenzer & Company proved how successful you could be just by producing compatible material and not working under any license.


3.5 burned 3rd party publishers and precipitated the bottom falling out on the market. A mountain of publishers were born in the wake of the OGL, all of whom made hundreds of books. Then 3.5 came out. People didn't want to use material made for 3.0, so they stopped buying 3rd party material that wasn't designed with 3.5 in mind. Enough people thought this way that the bottom fell out of the market and hordes of companies went out of business. By the time 4E rolled around, most of the OGL material being made was honing in on the PDF market or being completely free via the owner's websites or were completely self-contained game systems (like Pathfinder).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfActually, a lot of Pathfinder was directly inspired by the Paizo guys taking the stated design principles of 4E and molding them into their version of D&D. This is why dead levels are relatively rare (compared to 3.x); casters have At Will spells; previously weak classes get cool stuff; skills being simplified, encounter crafting was made easier; races being more balanced (or rather, the really bad ones not sucking so hard); the shift away from daily to round based abilities (ala Bardic Music and Rage); the simplification of non-attack actions (like grapple, trip, etc.); etc.

I'm fairly sure that the Pathfinder people arrived at the decision to do things like remove dead levels more or less independently of 4th edition.  There were obvious fiddly bits/problems with 3.5 that clearly needed tweaking.   The system cleaves far, far closer to 3.5 than 4th edition in almost every respect; it's just a polished 3.5.  Skills aren't hugely simplified much compared to 3.5, for example. It eschews the vast majority of 4e's changes - no healing surges, no encounter/daily powers, keeps vancian magic, keeps full mutliclassing, keeps a skill point system, etc etc.  I'd argue it doesn't really borrow that many design principles from 4th; after all 4th's guiding design principle (stated or not) is clearly to emphasize a tactical miniature wargame.  There might be a few very minor things from 4th that influenced Pathfinder, but the whole point of Pathfinder is that it isn't 4th edition.

Back in 2007-2009, I was deeply, deeply involved in the changes of editions. I spent a lot of time debating mechanical issues with fellow players and reading every scrap of information that fell out of the designer's mouths. Before I knew what 4E would become, I was in love with their design principles. What I was imagining in my head was a more balanced and fun version of 3.5. I never considered the idea that they were designing something whole cloth as I was stuck viewing everything through the lens of what I thought D&D was. Obviously 4E was not what people thought it was going to be, or at least I didn't. That's when I jumped on board with Paizo, they were giving me what I wanted - the same design principles but being applied to the game I already liked. Paizo didn't go as far as I would have liked but they still made a quality game.

Design Principles can be system neutral, or in the case of D&D-like games, edition neutral. Those design principles I stated apply equally to 4E and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter that the end products cleave closer or further to 3.5 because both game used the same principles to inform the kind of game they were designing.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'd be happy if Paizo released new rules for stuff, but I'd much rather they just designed a totally new game rather than Pathfinder 2.0, and publish both.  The great thing about Pathfinder is that it still works with the reams of material produced by Pazio, Wizards, and others for 3.X.  If Paizo burned that bridge, they'd be taking a pretty big risk and would likely alienate a lot of fans who stuck with them over Wizards precisely because they kept things backwards-compatible.

Since we have no concrete information on any of this, speculation does seem premature, however.

There always comes a time when one must ditch a system and start a fresh. WotC did it at the right time with 2E (so, 10 years) and horribly mangled it with 4E (8 years if being generous, 5 years if being unkind). They are saying 5E will last 10+ years but we shall see. I hope PF lasts a good long while as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing Paizo create a Sci-Fi.

The best selling games since 2008 have been:

D&D: Not Open
Pathfinder: Open (OGL)
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Death Watch/etc.: Not Open
Dragon Age: Not Open
Star Wars (FFG): Not Open
Iron Kingdoms: Not Open
Dungeon Crawl Classics: Open (OGL)
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Not Open
Shadowrun: Not Open
Mutants & Masterminds: Open (OGL)
Dresden Files: Open (OGL, Fate)
Warhammer: Not Open
World of Darkness : Not Open
Song of Fire & Ice: Not Open
Star Wars (WotC): Not Open
Exalted: Not Open

The OGL wasn't perfect, but it is still leaps and bounds ahead of the GSL.  It's not without any restrictions, but it lacks the sweeping impositions and aggressive, guarded clauses of the GSL.

Quote from: Elemental Elf3.5 burned 3rd party publishers and precipitated the bottom falling out on the market. A mountain of publishers were born in the wake of the OGL, all of whom made hundreds of books. Then 3.5 came out. People didn't want to use material made for 3.0, so they stopped buying 3rd party material that wasn't designed with 3.5 in mind. Enough people thought this way that the bottom fell out of the market and hordes of companies went out of business. By the time 4E rolled around, most of the OGL material being made was honing in on the PDF market or being completely free via the owner's websites or were completely self-contained game systems (like Pathfinder).

This is fair enough - I hadn't researched this as much and was unaware of just how much 3.5 hurt 3PP.  Still, at least 3,5 was OGL, so at least 3rd party publishers could theoretically adapt, re-release their books, etc.  I don't think it's fair to call Pathfinder "completely self-contained," however, because it's guiding principle is that it's fully useable with other 3rd edition material.

Quote from: Elemental ElfDesign Principles can be system neutral, or in the case of D&D-like games, edition neutral. Those design principles I stated apply equally to 4E and Pathfinder. It doesn't matter that the end products cleave closer or further to 3.5 because both game used the same principles to inform the kind of game they were designing.

I agree that principles can be system neutral, but I don't feel that Pathfinder and 4th edition share many design principles.  The things you mentioned like at-will cantrips and a lack of dead levels strike me as specific mechanical choices rather than core design principles.  Unless we go really broad, of course, and say that they share design principles like "this is a fantasy adventure role-playing game."

Quote from: Elemental ElfD&D: Not Open
Pathfinder: Open (OGL)
Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Death Watch/etc.: Not Open
Dragon Age: Not Open
Star Wars (FFG): Not Open
Iron Kingdoms: Not Open
Dungeon Crawl Classics: Open (OGL)
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Not Open
Shadowrun: Not Open
Mutants & Masterminds: Open (OGL)
Dresden Files: Open (OGL, Fate)
Warhammer: Not Open
World of Darkness : Not Open
Song of Fire & Ice: Not Open
Star Wars (WotC): Not Open
Exalted: Not Open

This is a very interesting list, though unsurprising.  Note that the majority of the not-open games that sold well are tied closely to preexisting properties (Star Wars, Marvel, A Song of Ice and Fire, Warhammer), which by their nature aren't inclined to being open, because the system is being crafted with a particular (copyrighted) property/setting in mind.  Amongst the more "general" or non campaign/setting-specific systems, like D&D, Pathfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, and Dungeon Crawl Classics, openness is much more common.  This makes sense, and suggests that an open-source publishing model is better for setting-neutral systems (like D&D), whereas closed publishing is better for setting-specific systems.

The date you list (2008) is very telling too, since that's when 4th edition came out; the preponderance of setting-specific bestsellers suggests that Wizards' decision to adopt the GSL over the OGL may have shaped things in such a way that companies increasingly decided to go in for games connected to self-contained pre-existing properties, since trying to produce content for D&D would be problematic.