You reap what you sow - GSL.
- Status
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
I don't think the OGL was as successful (for either WotC or 3pp) as it could/should have been. Some of that can be attributed to malice, greed, or selfishness. But I think most of it can be attributed to confusion, uncertainty, inexperience, and not-invented-here syndrome.
It was a great experiment, to take something that wasn't (and still isn't) fully developed in the software world and adapt it to a publishing model. The proponents of the OGL deserve extraordinary credit for vision and determination, and everyone who published OGL material gets a pat on the back for being a part of it. It's unfortunate that we likely won't see a second generation of it, because such radical departures from the norm are rarely perfect from the get go. Another generation of refinement, and a generation of designers and publishers who grew up in a post-OGL world, would have made things even better, I think.
Even if you never bought anything but WotC books, you benefitted from the OGL, just like you benefitted from any other game that's been published that you may never even have heard of. None of the work done for 3e or 4e was done in a vacuum.
The GSL is a result of corporate need, nothing else. WotC wants the whole pie, and they want to decide who gets the crumbs and under what circumstances. Perfectly within their rights, of course. As a capitalist, I can appreciate that.
But I hope people understand how anti-customer this is. More than most any other product, RPGs require great effort by the customer to be useful, and the reward is as much, if not more so, a result of that effort than it is of the product itself. The more material that's out there -- good, bad, mediocre -- the better off the hobbyist is, because you never know where the diamond in the rough is, or where you'll *yoink* that next cool idea for your campaign. The magic of role-playing games comes from the DMs and the players first and foremost, but none of us operate in a vacuum either, and the more we're limited to a single publishers vision of what gaming should be, the worse off we are.
It was a great experiment, to take something that wasn't (and still isn't) fully developed in the software world and adapt it to a publishing model. The proponents of the OGL deserve extraordinary credit for vision and determination, and everyone who published OGL material gets a pat on the back for being a part of it. It's unfortunate that we likely won't see a second generation of it, because such radical departures from the norm are rarely perfect from the get go. Another generation of refinement, and a generation of designers and publishers who grew up in a post-OGL world, would have made things even better, I think.
Even if you never bought anything but WotC books, you benefitted from the OGL, just like you benefitted from any other game that's been published that you may never even have heard of. None of the work done for 3e or 4e was done in a vacuum.
The GSL is a result of corporate need, nothing else. WotC wants the whole pie, and they want to decide who gets the crumbs and under what circumstances. Perfectly within their rights, of course. As a capitalist, I can appreciate that.
But I hope people understand how anti-customer this is. More than most any other product, RPGs require great effort by the customer to be useful, and the reward is as much, if not more so, a result of that effort than it is of the product itself. The more material that's out there -- good, bad, mediocre -- the better off the hobbyist is, because you never know where the diamond in the rough is, or where you'll *yoink* that next cool idea for your campaign. The magic of role-playing games comes from the DMs and the players first and foremost, but none of us operate in a vacuum either, and the more we're limited to a single publishers vision of what gaming should be, the worse off we are.
wingsandsword
Legend
Mercule said:
HyrumOWC said:
Nothing was wrong with the Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook.
It was perfectly within the bounds of the OGL. As Hyrum said, Ryan Dancey knew quite well it was possible someone would try to make such a book and yes, he practically dared somebody to reprint the SRD wholesale as a commercial product. However, with the brand name of D&D and the marketing engine of WotC behind it any replica would be much smaller potatoes to the PHB.
I actually bought a Mongoose PPH once, as a gift. A good friend of mine is an AD&D grognard who refuses adamantly to buy/own any D&D books of any edition after 2e AD&D. He will, very begrudgingly, play 3e/3.5 by using other people's books (a very cumbersome process). However, the Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook didn't have the name "Dungeons and Dragons" anywhere on the cover or title and was specifically not a D&D book in legal terms. Thus, I bought it for him for Christmas one year so he could own a Mongoose PPH and play in the same games without owning a D&D PHB from an edition he didn't like.
Thanks to the GSL, we can't do that for 4e, which makes him playing 4e far less likely than 3.5. That he's one of my best friends and gaming buddies is just another plank on the platform of my gaming group staying permanently with 3.5e
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
redcard said:
Since you can't argue the point, you've chosen a convenient time to retreat.
And thrown an irrefutable point in the way to cover your retreat. You're good.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
DaveMage said:
They aren't mutually exclusive. If I had to guess, I'd say that the 'Skaff effect' was the business case for doing it, but the concept of open gaming was his motivation.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?
- Status
Similar Threads
