Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)

[delericho]

The GSL is far more attractive to 3PPs who want to dabble-- get in, make some money, get out.

Indeed. And the absence of Paizo and, now, Green Ronin makes the license even more attractive to those guys, since they no longer have to compete with two of the 'big guys' on the old OGL scene.

As for the announcement itself: this isn't a big surprise. It's probably a good thing for Green Ronin. It's certainly a good thing for me (I'm almost certainly not going 4e). It's a blow for 4e, but hardly a fatal one.

These are interesting times for RPGs.

 

[Maggan]

I know, man. I am convinced such behavior is typical.

Among my circle of gamers, that is an atypical consumer pattern. Many of my friends consider their collection of 20 or so RPG books a fairly big investment, and are not interested in expanding it beyond that range. Most of those books are core rules for various games, including D&D.

Sure, I have a friend who's a big gnome fan, and who buys every book for any game where gnomes are featured prominently, but he's one of the few exceptions.

Maybe it's different here in Europe?

/M

 

[Alzrius]

I also don't really believe that there was a glut of d20 materials. More specifically, for a short time there was a vast (and somewhat confusing) number of d20 products (of varying quality) out there in the retail market, but these vastly shrunk over time, and long before 4E was announced they'd already dropped off sharply.

The reason that there seemed to be a large number of d20 products suddenly appearing was that the OGL was a sort of "blue ocean strategy" wherein it created a large new area for companies to release products in. Of course, it was incredibly popular, and skyrocketed as people rushed to make companies and put out products. In that sense, yes there were a lot of products out there.

However, that particular bubble began to shrink very quickly. Even if consumers hadn't slowed down after the initial surge, the move to 3.5 shook up the playing field very heavily. Further, the economy started to go into a spiral, meaning that people were buying even less anyway. Between the internal and external market forces, the d20 market was already rapidly equalizing anyway.

Now, several years later, that's even more true. 4E wouldn't have created a new "glut" because the market has largely already sorted itself out in that regard. People are no longer blindly rushing to buy anything compatible, companies are no longer springing up left and right to produce compatible material, and the economy has (if anything) gotten worse. Even if 4E had used the OGL, there'd have been no glut; just a minor upswing in compatible products produced that would have quickly equalized.

WotC making the incredibly restrictive and punitive GSL because they feared the glut strikes me as either being wrong, or WotC following some poor business advice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I know, man. I am convinced such behavior is typical.

As am I.

 

[Fenes]

Sure, I have a friend who's a big gnome fan, and who buys every book for any game where gnomes are featured prominently, but he's one of the few exceptions.

Maybe it's different here in Europe?

/M

I am in Europe. It's not so atypical, I'd say half my group acts the same.

 

[vazanar]

That's not just bad in the OGL context--it's bad in any business context. Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?

Which brings me to why this is still relevant: Lots of people have observed that the GSL is designed to let WotC "regain" control of their brand and IP. That's nonsense--control of the D&D brand and IP has never been under threat. What WotC wants to do (in my no-longer-an-insider opinion) is put some controls on the market; in particular, to only open D&D compatibility to 3PPs who make products that complement (rather than compete with) WotC's products.


So WotC changed the terms of 3PP compatibility with D&D, and made it more restrictive. Insofar as it controls the glut and keeps 3PP focused on products that players actually want and don't get (or don't get enough of) from WotC, more restrictive is good for the RPG business as a whole, it's good for WotC, and frankly it's good for the third-party publishers. And if it also means that a relatively small number of 3PP participate (currently 3 to 5, as opposed to hundreds under the OGL), so that the choices offered to consumers and retailers are relatively narrow but desirable, so much the better.

(Whether WotC did this well is not part of my argument; I leave that to a different discussion.)

(A side note: When I generalize about the behavior of 3PPs, I am, of course, generalizing. Obviously there are exceptions; I'm not pointing any fingers at specific companies. Offender or innocent: you know who you are (and odds are it's reflected in your level of success).)

(Hi, Nik!)

You do relaize the GSL encourages clones more than anything? Much of the glut Ive seen in the stores would still be viable in the GSL.

Im thinking of the 3pp Ive bought.
Iron Kingdoms - Steam Fantasy, tied with warmachine - Certainly diffrent than Eberron, Since they rewrote tons of classics Im not sure its allowed.

Ptolus- Maybe Waterdeep/Cityscape were competition. It does change some classic monsters. However, Ptolus wasnt done as an ongoing venture so much.

Arcana Evolved/Iron Heroes - I can understand WOTC not wanting this as much. Of course the Irony of Mearls and all.

Worlds Largest Dungeon - I dont think any retailer would stock this (or Ptolus) It wasnt great but was fun to pull sections out of. I think it be fine in the GSL.

Midnight- Is there anything not reimagined in this world? WOTC didnt really have similar world. Then again maybe they can cut some flavour to make it work.

Dungeon/Pathfinder - Paizo probably was one in more direct competition. Then again WOTC started them doing it in Dungeon/Dragon.

So what I bought and help keep me playing DD does not seem to be allowed or needs something special under GSL. Yet low and behold most of the OGL glut my FLGS is trying to get rid of does confrom to GSL.

It seems the bigger 3pp will have a harder time with GSL than the smaller glut companies.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Among my circle of gamers, that is an atypical consumer pattern. Many of my friends consider their collection of 20 or so RPG books a fairly big investment, and are not interested in expanding it beyond that range. Most of those books are core rules for various games, including D&D.

Sure, I have a friend who's a big gnome fan, and who buys every book for any game where gnomes are featured prominently, but he's one of the few exceptions.

Maybe it's different here in Europe?

/M

Hmm, maybe not. We just need to broaden our categories:

1) Players who buy nothing. They use the other players' books.
2) Players who buy the core rules.
3) Players who buy everything "official" from WotC.
4) Players who buy everything that pertains to them.
5) Players who buy everything.

(All within their budgetary means, of course.)

You may find players in groups 1, 2, and 3 who are not in the market for 3PP at all.

But I am saying there are probably not a lot of players who are in the market for 3PP supplements who draw the line at ONE.

As such, there's no reason (as Charles seems to suggest) to arbitrarily limit the number of 3PP "Splatbook XYZ" to one-- presumably "whoever gets there first."

Just because Mongoose plants a flag on Quintessential Fighter does not mean that you won't be able to sell an Advanced Fighter's Handbook.

In fact, I'd almost suggest just the opposite: If Quintessential Fighter does very well, I would consider that proof of demand worthy of more supply, rather than assume that the demand has been met.

 

[Maggan]

More specifically, for a short time there was a vast (and somewhat confusing) number of d20 products (of varying quality) out there in the retail market, but these vastly shrunk over time, and long before 4E was announced they'd already dropped off sharply.

What I saw was that the production of d20 levelled off. Unfortunately I also saw that the "bad books" were still in the channel, they were on the shelves of gaming stores who had invested too much in sub quality books that didn't sell, and which sat there, taking up space and locking up resources that should have gone towards putting stuff from quality publishers on the shelves instead.

Off the top of my head I think I saw books from these publishers sitting unsold for ever on many a shelf: Pinnacle, Chaosium, Fast Forward Entertainment, Nightshift Games, Valar Project, Avalanche, Citizen Games, Columbia Games, Dark Portal, OtherWorld, Wicked Press, Archangel, Hogshead. I also saw dozens of the AEG and FFG miniadventures never moving an inch, and they put out tons of those.

Most of those mentioned above only published one or two books, but they sat there on the shelves forever and ever. I think that if the stores had gotten only the books from the publishers that Wulf mentioned, that would have been great. But they also took in dozens of other publishers' books, which didn't sell, and that is what I think of as one reason that people think of this as a glut. They kept seeing the same books on the shelves, week after week. Which gives the impression that supply exceeds demand, which is what I think of when discussing the d20 glut.

/M

 

[Kingskin]

Smart businesses look for opportunities and points of differentiation--they don't attack their competition's strengths (unless they're in a position to really win). When consumers already have good, solid choices in one product category, why pile on to that category when the need for a different type of product is unfulfilled?

I can't agree with this at all. Pretty much every industries runs on finding an idea that works and putting your brand on it. Look at the computer games industry:

Doom
Sim City/Civ
Command & Conquer
Street Fighter 2

Clones of the above pretty much account for about 90% of what's out there and have done for the last 10 years or so. You're talking about (presumably) smart businessmen turning a hobby industry into something that's now threatening Hollywood in terms of revenue by doing exactly what you've complained about.
I'm not arguing that having a hundred different flavours of the same FPS is good for the consumer, but I've never claimed that about the OGL/STL/GSL/STD either.
Yes, it's great when someone comes up with a new way of doing things and tries out something completely new, but it's a risky business and the smart money knows it's safer to rip off something popular. As another example; look at how many shaky-handcam films have come out since Cloverfield. When I caught that at the cinema there were trailers for 2 or 3 films that had ripped of that exact premise. OK, Blair Witch/Last Broadcast had already been there but the point still stands.

 

[Umbran]

Hmm, maybe not. We just need to broaden our categories:

1) Players who buy nothing. They use the other players' books.
2) Players who buy the core rules.
3) Players who buy everything "official" from WotC.
4) Players who buy everything that pertains to them.
5) Players who buy everything.

My own observations still don't fit those patterns. I see gamers that are more discerning - they'll look for the best (for them) book on a particular subject, rather than buy all the books available on a subject. Yes, there are a number of "completionists" out there, but I haven't seen solid suggestion that they're even the majority.

So, 4a) Players who buy core, and some things that pertain to them

It is a good question - when we talk of "the market" what is it, really? Is it more a small number of completionists, or a larger number of selective buyers, with some competionists in the mix?