General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
"An industrial rebellion is afoot in the role-playing game (RPG) scene. Traditionally, a tabletop RPG provides its players with a firm rules system within which they can construct their stories, but recent corporate changes to the fourth edition of the oldest and most popular system—Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)—have spawned a negative response so strong that players have actually begun to alter the game system against the wishes of its owners. Further, they have begun to publish these changes. In this essay, I will attempt to detail the development of this fan-created rebellion."
Comments on the paper?
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Last edited by roguerouge; 26th June 2009 at 02:54 PM..
The essay doesn't seem to be anything more than one of the standard edition war posts here. If the essay were an edition war post here, it wouldn't be one of the better ones I've seen.
P.S. I've seen much better anti-4E/anti-WotC arguments here and elsewhere
What does she mean by saying that WotC tried to "recall" the OGL during the days of 3e?
I feel that her paper would be enhanced by a working knowledge of copyright law, so that she wouldn't treat relatively obvious, basic industry actions as revolutionary.
I think the author assumes the anti-4e demographic is a much larger market share than it actually is. By the sound of the article, WotC has ruined the game, and nearly all the old gamers are rejecting the new edition. It also assumes that WotC demands you play the game in a certain way, and introducing your own elements and style to the game is against the rules or not allowed.
It's an opinion piece with a heavy bias, and not very much actual academic information. If the author included sales figures or a comparison of 3pp product releases and sales between 3e and 4e, I would be more likely to lend the argument more credibility. Overall, it can be summarized as an attempt to make edition complaints into an unbiased argument.
But [the OGL era] didn't last long. Perhaps threatened by the upsurge in competition, Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast attempted to recall the open license and revoke the rights of third-party publishers, and supporters of the open license were fired en masse.
8 years is a pretty long time for anything in the entertainment industry to last. There's also little evidence to back the claim. Saying that licensees were "fired" is both imprecise and hyperbolic, and trying to extend that to OGL supporters is very poor form.
I just kinda read at random, but man, that essay sucked. I mean really sucked.
Quote:
[6.1] But if I am less literal in my search for comparisons, I think that mainstream fandom may already be waging its own radical war against corporate control. The emerging arguments of fair use and academic relevance (many in this very journal); the increasing social acceptance of fan fiction and music videos; the sea change at the networks to program for the Internet literate, to provide streaming episodes and Webisodes and online comics, and to encourage the existence of fandom, are all evidence that it is possible to fight for greater control over the way we receive and interact with our stories of choice.
[6.2] RPG fandom is not the only one waging an anticorporate war, even if it is the only one that got handed a large supply of open-sourced bullets.
Lolwut? I assume this isn't a serious journal in any way right?
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
What does she mean by saying that WotC tried to "recall" the OGL during the days of 3e?
About halfway through the production, WotC revised the OGL, stating that in order to have the d20 logo you had to hold the product to certain decency standards. I believe this was in response to Gwendolyn Kestrel's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I could be mistaken. There was a big debate at the time about WotC not following their own rules. At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.
Lolwut? I assume this isn't a serious journal in any way right?
Whenever I hear someone ranting or arguing about corporate evils, the Billy Joel song "Angry Young Man" starts running through my head. Funny how that happens.
About halfway through the production, WotC revised the OGL, stating that in order to have the d20 logo you had to hold the product to certain decency standards. I believe this was in response to Gwendolyn Kestrel's Book of Erotic Fantasy, but I could be mistaken. There was a big debate at the time about WotC not following their own rules. At least one peices of artwork in Book of Exalted Deeds, for example, showed bare nipples on women.
No it didn't, it revised the d20 STL, which is a different license altogether from the OGL.
__________________ It's a big world out there. Go tear it up.
No it didn't, it revised the d20 STL, which is a different license altogether from the OGL.
There's no point revising the OGL, since one of the OGL's terms is "You may use any edition of this license" - the OGL is a beautiful poison pill vs future shenanigans by whoever owns D&D.
There's no point revising the OGL, since one of the OGL's terms is "You may use any edition of this license" - the OGL is a beautiful poison pill vs future shenanigans by whoever owns D&D.
That's right. I'd agree that the OGL is beautiful, but I woudn't characterize it as a poison pill, even versus shenanigans (or tomfoolery).
__________________ It's a big world out there. Go tear it up.
There's no point revising the OGL, since one of the OGL's terms is "You may use any edition of this license" - the OGL is a beautiful poison pill vs future shenanigans by whoever owns D&D.
As I said, it wound up being you can only use the d20 logo if you follow the criteria. You can still do whatever the hell you want, and that's how Pathfinder is even being published right now. It just lacks the logo.
Lolwut? I assume this isn't a serious journal in any way right?
No, it's a serious journal, albeit a very, very new one. I've met Kristina Busse, one of the editors, probably at Slayage. She's got a good head on her shoulders.
I think the symposium is the academic version of the op-ed piece, so perhaps saying "studies" was a bit strong in my title. Note that the word limit is 2500 words, whereas the Theory or Praxis articles can range to 8000.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
As I said, it wound up being you can only use the d20 logo if you follow the criteria. You can still do whatever the hell you want, and that's how Pathfinder is even being published right now. It just lacks the logo.
But the article claims this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
[3.3] But it didn't last long. Perhaps threatened by the upsurge in competition, Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast attempted to recall the open license and revoke the rights of third-party publishers
Changing the d20 STL, which was not an open license, does not constitute WotC having "attempted to recall the open license." This implies they tried to revoke the OGL, which they didn't. Language in the OGL, which WotC wrote, prevents revocation of the license.
The OGL and the d20 STL are (were) very different beasts. This section of the article reads as if the author does not know the difference between the OGL and the d20 STL, or at least glossing over the distinction. This is common enough, but certainly hurts your credibility when writing a "serious" article.
As for the article as a whole, it's good for a laugh, if you enjoy that sort of thing. To me, it reads like a "Wot$ is EEEEEVIILLLLLL, 3PPs RULE!" post, but written in a pretentious manner. I find the conclusion in 4.4 that with 4E, WotC may have "created their own competition" rather strange. You could argue that was a result of the OGL in 3E, where publishers published self-contained RPGs using the license, and that's one reason they wanted to move away from that degree of openness. It's also strange considering the admission in the next paragraph that the 3PPs have a "tiny market".
Edit: Wow, paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 read exactly like an anti-4E post on any message board, but once again couched in academic-sounding language (to a degree). It hits on many empty buzzwords.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Last edited by Fifth Element; 26th June 2009 at 01:52 AM..
You could argue that was a result of the OGL in 3E, where publishers published self-contained RPGs using the license, and that's one reason they wanted to move away from that degree of openness. It's also strange considering the admission in the next paragraph that the 3PPs have a "tiny market".
From what I got from someone I talked to, one of the big reasons for the change was 3PPs taking the 3e rules wholecloth and reprinting them (like Mongoose's pocket player guide). WotC's view was that "Hey, we spent millions of dollars and countless hours working on that, and you turn around and publish it without any effort on your part."
From what I got from someone I talked to, one of the big reasons for the change was 3PPs taking the 3e rules wholecloth and reprinting them (like Mongoose's pocket player guide). WotC's view was that "Hey, we spent millions of dollars and countless hours working on that, and you turn around and publish it without any effort on your part."
Precisely. That was a (presumably unforeseen) consequence of having a license as the OGL. The OGL was intended, I believe, to allow third parties to publish material compatible with 3E, not reprint 3E itself.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
