OGL:Someone releases as OGC a most revolutionary & awesome game design.You, Wotc...

xechnao · Jul 1, 2009

mudbunny said:
Do the other players want to change games;

Do the other players have the time to learn a new system;

Do the players want to learn a new system;

Are the books readily available;

is there support readily available;

In a way you are restating the problem here. It is the same thing.
Anyway, this is out of topic. Lets say that this problem lies in the lacking simplicity of rpgs for our current busy times and thus the development and fragmentation of the market in a small number of hardcore bases -which is what both you and I are saying.

jmucchiello · Jul 1, 2009

xechnao said:
You may be right. When did they announce they wont support the OGL in 4e and go for a new license? Before or after Mearls was hired? I am not sure.

Doesn't matter when they officially said it. The last time anything OGC came out of WotC was the Unearthed Arcana book. After than long rumored updates to the SRD never happened. UA came out in 2004. Sometime after it came out WotC decided to no longer support the OGL.

But there have been many instances that something new makes an existing market turn and change direction so abruptly that the industrial powers or the producers have to pay more attention than they usually are.

In industrial markets, this is true. But D&D is not a widget. It's a brand, like Coca-Cola. People don't drink Coke because they like it. They drink it because it is Coca-Cola. Better tasting drinks come along every day and folks still by Coke. Coke is a brand, an experience.

D&D works the same way. No innovation is going blow the doors off D&D. Let me come at this from a different angle: If you name any tabletop RPG that has something D&D is missing or an innovation that you think D&D should have acquired, I'll bet you can find a gaming group somewhere that not only agrees with you but they've also already incorporated the new concept into their "D&D" game. There've been threads about this many times. What does it mean to be "playing D&D"? So whether or not WotC does anything about some innovation is a moot point. If people like it, they'll add it to D&D whether or not WotC does it for them.

(It's late and I'm having trouble focusing. So I'll leave it here until tomorrow when I'll respond to some other response (I'm sure).)

catastrophic · Jul 1, 2009

I can think of quite a few innovative design elements and trends that WOTC added into 4e and the design time before it, such as advice sections from Robin Laws, not to mention the mook-like minions, and obv Mike Mearls came up through d20 and iron heroes didn't he?

Scholar & Brutalman · Jul 1, 2009

I am WotC?

If the Most Revolutionary & Awesome Game Design is not a pen-and-paper RPG but some other product that does not compete with mine, then I wish its developers good fortune.

If the MR&AGD is a pen and paper RPG, then what I do depends on the situation the MR&AGD is in.

i) If the MR&AGD is like almost all such designs since, say, Runequest in 1979, it is critically popular but is not selling well enough to damage my market. I ask my developers if any of the rules innovations in the MR&AGD could be usefully imported into D&D. If they think they can, then I use the fact that game rules can't be patented to introduce similar rules into D&D, though of course I ensure that no copyright is violated.

ii) If the MR&AGD is - like Vampire in 1992 - successful enough to draw new demographics into the P&P RPG market I get my marketers to analyze why, and get the developers to see if D&D can be made to appeal to the same people. If it can, I do so, while - of course - being careful not to violate the MR&AGDs copyright. If it can't I see if the new demographic is big enough that we would be justified in developing a competing product in the same genre.

iii) If the MR&AGD is - like no other competitor to D&D to date - completely crushing it in the marketplace, then I cut back on production of D&D till I see if the new game's a fad or not. During this time I move most of my developers to work on Magic the Gathering instead, and the marketers to try and determine why it's such a unique success. I stroll down to the airport to see if all the pigs are fueled and ready for takeoff, and promise myself to cut back on my intake of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Jack99 · Jul 1, 2009

xechnao said:
You may be right. When did they announce they wont support the OGL in 4e and go for a new license? Before or after Mearls was hired? I am not sure.

He was hired in June (iirc) 2005, so way before we even knew there would be a GSL.

Keefe the Thief · Jul 1, 2009

xechnao said:
Someone releases as OGC a most revolutionary & awesome game design. You are Wotc. Now, what would you do about it?

I would not integrate it into D&D, fearing the backlash from the "OMG Golden Wyvern Anime" and "where´s the frost giant!" crowd.

I would wait to the end of the edition, bring the idea out well-hidden in a Bo5S-style addon book, and see how people react.

If the reaction is indifferent or positive: in 5e, i would integrate the idea that is now tradition enough not to be constantly attacked into a book with "Dragon" and "Magic" in the title.

Windjammer · Jul 1, 2009

Jack99 said:
He was hired in June (iirc) 2005, so way before we even knew there would be a GSL.

Mearls' attitude towards the OGL is hard to track over the years. Around 2005, when he got hired by WotC, it became much harder to see his take on the OGL as to its being a good thing for the gaming community or not. Starting off slightly earlier, here's his famous proposal of an OGL Wiki, basically spearheading the open content movement into new directions. And then, after getting hired, he said something rather different (and less favourable)about the 3PP market. In clarifying his intent as to the latter, he then responded here, distinguishing between (a) 3PP companies using the OGL and (b) using the OGL when self-publishing. Well, I can't make heads or tails of these sources, but I'm certainly suspending any personal verdict on them for this very reason.

xechnao · Jul 1, 2009

jmucchiello said:
Doesn't matter when they officially said it.

I think it does. I mean, the GSL story has had its influence in the community. You can clearly see this for Paizo and its fans and the effect to the whole community. The comunity of the hardcore D&D fans of today (those that go on message boards etch) are not in exactly the same state they were before the handling of the new license and the changes it brought and many of the fans and thus the base will to remember this. And the fact that Pathfinder goes on will be carrying this on. And it is not just Pathfinder. Here on Enworld it is not the same as it used to be and some may have noticed and remember the difference. And these people will make others notice and remember (again with the most notable result the edition wars).

jmucchiello said:
No innovation is going blow the doors off D&D.

It has already happened with M:tG. I am not saying that Magic killed AD&D but it certainly played its part. Come 3e, the design took a heavy influence from the design principles or ideas M:tG brought to the hobby community.
Streamlining and stuff.

Halivar · Jul 1, 2009

xechnao said:
It has already happened with M:tG. I am not saying that Magic killed AD&D but it certainly played its part. Come 3e, the design took a heavy influence from the design principles or ideas M:tG brought to the hobby community.
Streamlining and stuff.

It was my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that the D&D and M:tG divisions had no overlap or communication, and that in fact there was significant office politics going on between them back during the turn of the millennium. I don't think M:tG had a significant effect on the development of 3rd Edition.

xechnao · Jul 1, 2009

Halivar said:
It was my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that the D&D and M:tG divisions had no overlap or communication, and that in fact there was significant office politics going on between them back during the turn of the millennium. I don't think M:tG had a significant effect on the development of 3rd Edition.

Just look at the results. A big effort to get all things streamlined and organized under a system mechanic that runs the whole game. If I also remember correctly I have read somewhere -it could be anywhere between some game design textbook or some post in some forum- the creator of M:tG, Richard Garfield, was giving advice to the D&D team -memory could be failing me though.