Mearls' Latest Thought on the Industry

[hexgrid]

People overall are not going to spend a lot of time and effort for nothing more than feeling good.

But when it comes to open source software, many people ARE willing to do exactly this. What makes RPGs different?

 

[philreed]

So far, both suggestions would benefit WotC far more than the RPG market as a whole, coincidentally or not.

I suspect that's the overall goal. If D&D sales really are dropping, and recent events have only reinforced that belief (for me), it only makes sense to try and leverage your name and position to eat away at competition.

No matter the size or shape of that competition.

 

[philreed]

But when it comes to open source software, many people ARE willing to do exactly this. What makes RPGs different?

The amount of money involved (or lack of money). And scale.

I would most likely release a lot more free material if my sales were twice what they currently are.

 

[Henry]

But when it comes to open source software, many people ARE willing to do exactly this. What makes RPGs different?

In a lot of cases, it's for practice. There are a lot of Open Sourcers spending their time and attention because they're spending time putting a new software language they're learning into practice, and after they start, they often keep working on the project as a matter of keeping their skills honed, and as a matter of time and emotional investment. Heck, Merton Monk began PCGen as an exercise in learning Javascript, and later Java. Linus Torvalds began Linux as a senior project to black-box a Unix kernel.

In contrast, there aren't that many "budding game designers" who want to hone their craft. The myth of "getting rich in RPG's" died long ago. Getting rich in software development, however, ain't a myth.

 

[UniversalMonster]

Originally Posted by Peter
It might be hard for Mearls to do an Open Source wiki himself right now, because he is very busy, plus he is now an official WOTC guy.

So people are not sharing because they are to busy selling stuff and, in your assessment, Mike would would lead the way here, but he has a very good excuse for why he can't. The excuse being that he is to busy making stuff to sell. OK

Anyway, on first blush I think this conclusion is way off.

Whoa, I said "might". I have no idea and make no conclusions, especially for someone I don't really know that well. I personally think it's a cool idea, but I am seeing reasons why it won't happen.

For one thing, suggesting that getting people away from a profit motive as a solution to the Open Gaming community "problem". Is about as founded in reality as suggesting people flapping their arms to fly as a solution to traffic problems.

For another thing, I don't see any evidence that removing the profit motive from the mix would even begin to make people share content. People keep re-invinting different versions of the same thing as is. Why spend time and money doing a different version of something already available? Particularly if your goal is to produce a product to sale? The answer is every designer, from the home-brew guy with a web site to the major publishers, all seem convinced that their idea for monster X or Feat Y is the ideal and every other version to go before it missed the mark. Solve that problem and we will see a lot more sharing.

I'll wait here.

I have no idea about things like 'profit', 'industry', or any of that publishing stuff. I just know I'll be getting together with the guys every Friday and gaming. And in the days that come between one Friday and the next I'll probably be looking at gaming stuff on the internets.

 

[philreed]

In contrast, there aren't that many "budding game designers" who want to hone their craft. The myth of "getting rich in RPG's" died long ago. Getting rich in software development, however, ain't a myth.

Any wealthy software developers that want to sponsor a game designer to create custom material for their home games can feel free to contact me.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Back to the original topic, I kinda fail to see how yet more prestige classes or new kinds of dwarves would be "innovation", whether they were released for free or sold as small, low-price PDFs. You're still talking about fiddling with knobs and making minor changes.

The open source software analogy would be something like "Why aren't there more free skins for Program X"? Well, there are a couple hundred -- how many more do you need?

Now if you look at PDF publishing of entirely new game systems, then yes I can see some comparison with open-source software. People find a niche that's not filled, develop something they'd want to use, and share it around.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

In a lot of cases, it's for practice. There are a lot of Open Sourcers spending their time and attention because they're spending time putting a new software language they're learning into practice, and after they start, they often keep working on the project as a matter of keeping their skills honed, and as a matter of time and emotional investment. Heck, Merton Monk began PCGen as an exercise in learning Javascript, and later Java. Linus Torvalds began Linux as a senior project to black-box a Unix kernel.

In contrast, there aren't that many "budding game designers" who want to hone their craft. The myth of "getting rich in RPG's" died long ago. Getting rich in software development, however, ain't a myth.

A couple of other points here:

Some of the open source programmers are working to put together something that suits their needs and will make them more productive in their work. Open Source Gamers may end up with a better game, but it is still a hobby so it will always be back seat to other priorities.

Some open source programmers do it for the express purpose of "sticking it to the man" (Bill Gates, of course). They see it as a way to protest against a huge corporation controlling most of the computers in the world. Open source gaming will not "stick it" to WotC in any significant way - the OGC is their baby after all.

 

[HinterWelt]

Well, my 2 cents say that PDFs are a different kind of market and development from print. I have 13 print products right now and 15 PDF. PDF I can update as errata and system refinements come along. I truly appreciate that aspect of it. I do believe that this encourages some companies to put out less than polished products. Note, I said some and in no way mean all. When you do a print product you edit and edit, play test and play test, and then curse your own black heart when something is screwed up in the final version. That usually is a $2000-4000 mistake.

So, for me, to sum up, pdfs are not stifling creativity but it is affecting how it is approached. I think it has been said that the endless flood of feats/monster/class books are market wise smart but not really advancing the d20 system. Some publishers are putting out mechanical advancements but the "small"pdf model does not seem to accomodate this well. To tweek how initiative is calculated but leave the rest of the system untouched may sell books but will not revolutionize the system. However, small steps can make a difference. There are pdf publishers doing this and there are pdf publishers selling the next list of feats/classes/spells and some doing both. I do not see it as stifling but I could see someone with a myopic view of the pdf industry as seeing it as such.

Bill

 

[GMSkarka]

All that I'm going to say on this topic is:

As a business analyst, Mike makes a great game designer.





Seriously, folks. Most of the stuff I've seen Mike post is interesting, but occasionally far outside of his area of expertise and experience, and often very far off the mark....yet, some gamers continue to take his word as gospel because he designs some great stuff.

I'd have a hard time taking unilateral comments about PDF publishing at face value from someone who has never done it.

Mike has his opinions...and in this case, he's simply mistaken. Doesn't change the fact that he's a brilliant designer.