You reap what you sow - GSL.

MongooseMatt · Jun 18, 2008

Mercule said:
Again, quite true. But... My first encounter with the PPH was meeting up with an old college buddy who was quite proud of the fact that his extended gaming group of 10-12 people all used only the PPH and wouldn't buy any product from WotC because they were "too corporate", whatever that means. I've also seen several people on these boards and others trumpet the fact that they only use the HTML SRD and intended on doing the same with 4e.

A business threat to WotC? I doubt it. But both are pretty rude.

But you can't have it both ways

On the one hand, you have raised an opinion that the PPH was rude and disrespectful.

On the other, we have been talking about 3rd parties hoarding their own Open Content.

So, which is it?

If 3rd parties should give up their Open Content (and , yes, they should), then surely the same applies to WotC? Or should Open Content be relatively closed, and so both WotC and 3rd parties can relax about other people using their material?

Eh, eh?

Wulf Ratbane · Jun 18, 2008

redcard said:
The long and short of it is this. WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else. Not a lot of that was returned. Perhaps if there was more give and less take in the last deal, the OGL would have been seen as a viable success to WOTC, and you won't be seeing this now.

Who wasn't "returning" OGC? To whom was it meant to be "returned?"

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

MongooseMatt · Jun 18, 2008

redcard said:
The long and short of it is this. WOTC gave a LOT of OGC as compared to everyone else. Not a lot of that was returned. The OGL fails when people stop giving stuff back. People stopped giving stuff back. The OGL has failed. WOTC moved on.

I am going to call you up on that one

The sheer amount of OGC material released by third parties could sink WotC's Open Content boat. The OGC material of some publishers alone (say, us

) could have a serious go at that.

I'll go one step further.

Some publishers are _still_ producing Open Content. Green Ronin are doing it. We are doing it with Conan, and have expanded the OGL to include RuneQuest and Traveller, both of which we have ten year plans for. We are even looking at it for the Battlefield Evolution miniatures game.

The OGL is now a permanent fixture of the Roleplaying hobby and, ten years from now, there will still be brand new books being published under it.

You can't say that 3rd parties did not give it a decent swing of the bat

Voadam · Jun 18, 2008

Aus_Snow said:
What the hell did they do for magic items, monsters and all the rest?

My guess would be the pocket DMG and MM. The SRD had most of the core magic items and monsters.

There are also no shortage of original third party monster books and even plenty of 3rd party magic item books that created tons of new monsters and magic items.

redcard · Jun 18, 2008

Wulf Ratbane said:
Who wasn't "returning" OGC? To whom was it meant to be "returned?"

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about. But I'm not going to argue the point any more. WOTC has obviously stepped away from the OGL.

Wulf Ratbane · Jun 18, 2008

MongooseMatt said:
You can't say that 3rd parties did not give it a decent swing of the bat

He said it.

The sheer amount of OGC material released by third parties could sink WotC's Open Content boat. The OGC material of some publishers alone (say, us ) could have a serious go at that.

I go so far as to say that the overwhelming majority of 3rd party content was either 100% Open or clearly designated. "Closed" and "crippled" content was the exception, not the rule.

More to the point, WotC never cared to use any Open Content one way or the other. To suggest that they shut down the whole experiment because the 3PP weren't playing nice with each other?

Take a look at the S.15 designations for True20 sometime and try to tell me that the 3rd party publishers weren't playing ball.

The sheer idiocy of the accusation offends me.

I'm A Banana · Jun 18, 2008

The OGL is now a permanent fixture of the Roleplaying hobby and, ten years from now, there will still be brand new books being published under it.

Frickin' word.

It'll be pretty interesting to see if 5e does anything about this in 10 years (such as going back to a more open system).

It's kind of exciting, this notion that collectively, the 3rd parties are still doing some amazing things with game design and business models.

Lizard · Jun 18, 2008

redcard said:
I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about. But I'm not going to argue the point any more. WOTC has obviously stepped away from the OGL.

Yes, but it was hardly due to 3PP's not "Returning" OGL. When I look at books like Spycraft, Everquest, Conan, Grim Tales, the Green Ronin "Advanced..." series, and so many more, all of which are either totally or mostly OGL...it's hard to see where anyone could have asked 3PPs to do more. That WOTC chose, of their own volition, not to take full advantage of the work of third party publishers and incorporate it into their own products is their fault.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 18, 2008

Kamikaze Midget said:
Frickin' word.

It'll be pretty interesting to see if 5e does anything about this in 10 years (such as going back to a more open system).

I suppose that depends on who's in charge then.

And maybe also on how corporate culture in general has changed by then. If "Open Source" is more accepted, even outside of software companies...

Aus_Snow · Jun 18, 2008

redcard said:
I have a HUGE clue what I'm talking about.

Not regarding OGC, WotC and OGL publishers, you don't. Not as demonstrated so far, anyway. By all means, disprove that though.

You reap what you sow - GSL.

MongooseMatt

First Post

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer

MongooseMatt

First Post

Voadam

Legend

redcard

First Post

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

Lizard

Explorer

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

Aus_Snow

First Post

Similar Threads