Mike Mearls On the OGL

[Korgoth]

Do you consider your 3.0 and 3.5 books compatible? If so, I think we're fine. If not, I think we may need to drill down a bit more about just how precise your definition of compatible is.

--Erik

Purely as an aside... have you ever thought of statting your Pathfinder adventures for OSRIC (I mean in addition to the 3.x stats)?

 

[xechnao]

Someday I'll learn my lesson and stop replying to you.

You're always talking about "success". The OGL will only be successful if it beats D&D. Pathfinder will only be successful if it beats 4e. I think your definition of success might be different from everyone else's. Storyteller, GURPS, Shadowrun, Runequest -- none of these have beat D&D or 4e, but they're all successes. Pepsi doesn't have to beat Coke to be a success. All Pathfinder needs to do to be a "success" is find an sustained audience large enough to pay their bills. Pathfinder and 4e, though related, are not the same game and will not appeal to the same audiences. There is no magic formula for an RPG, no one-size-fits-all, even within a narrow category like "combat & exploration-oriented fantasy RPG"

What you are saying is correct and I do not disagree. I have not been disagreeing with this. I was talking about the OGL movement though. Isn't OGL movement what this thread is about? And my opinion is that if you want OGL to be sure to succeed as a movement eventually you will have to understand that it will have to be a different thing than D&D's expansion as a principle. So far it's priority had been to expand on D20-D&D. This as a primary goal or rather as principle has to change.

 

[Maggan]

Do you consider your 3.0 and 3.5 books compatible?

Yep. I use stuff interchangably from 3.0 and 3.5, with minor conversions. So if that's the level of difference, you're set.

/M

 

[mearls]

It's not a surprise that some people haven't seem to read his actual post, since this is several pages into the thread, but I would still recommend doing so before saying anything about what Mike wrote or ascribing motives to him.

It's illuminating to me that the motives and reasons for misreading my post are, in some ways, addressed in the next post I'm working on.

In essence, there are a number of factors in the RPG business that make good faith efforts at open source development difficult at best.

You'll notice that organizations like Mozilla are non-profits, though they have other ways of generating revenue other than selling the fruits of the open source development they support.

By the same token, many open source projects produce software that helps a business or organization profit indirectly. Example: The Apache web server is robust, which avoids down time, which makes a company's online store more profitable (less time spent fixing it, fewer customers lost, etc).

The RPG business lacks that layer of user. We have only publishers and users, and, users don't profit via better rules. They might save some time or have more fun with a game, but the superior rules don't make them more money.

OTOH, publishers do make more money off better rules. Yet, only one person can sell a core rulebook, and that's where all the money is.

So, it makes a lot of sense for publishers to utilize open material in the way we saw things develop: publishers creating core rulebook fiefdoms by "forking" the SRD. Economically, that makes sense.

However, that doesn't mean that it makes sense in terms of fostering open source development. We can't rely on economic motivators to drive open source RPG development.

Yet, I believe that open sourced, shared, and interactive design is the best way to foster the next generation of designers and creators. The indie movement centered on the Forge (setting aside the ideological particulars of that movement) showcases how a community founded and centered on design can cultivate and grow a better understanding of RPGs. That's something we need more of, and I think true open development can foster that.

 

[Propagandroid]

Mike,

Will your next post provide a blueprint for future open-source RPG development?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

OTOH, publishers do make more money off better rules. Yet, only one person can sell a core rulebook, and that's where all the money is.

Well, there are some of us who think rulebooks should be free.

The problem is that making most of your money from selling core rulebooks leads to splatbook proliferation, which in turn leads to very cynical customers who think, "I could make rules just as good as that". At which point they see through it all--because the RPG rulebook business is a massive game of Emperor's New Clothes.

You don't actually need someone else to write the rules for you. You can make them up. And most of us do, and have, and will again. (How many people house-ruled in a morale system for 3e? And come to that how come a game got released without morale rules in the first place? It's a complete mystery to me.)

You can spend the rest of your life playing a game based on one ruleset. And some of us do, and have, and will keep doing it. You don't need to drop several hundred dollars on the next version--you have to have a reason to do that.

So the real creative work--the value added that designers can really give their customers--lies in campaign worlds and adventures and fluff. I mean, you show me a long-term D&D player, and I'll show you someone who knows who Acererak is. Or Eclavdra, or King Snurre. Someone who remembers all those goblins shouting "Bree-Yark!"...

... so that should be the way games companies look for profit.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Well, there are some of us who think rulebooks should be free.

The problem is that making most of your money from selling core rulebooks leads to splatbook proliferation, which in turn leads to very cynical customers who think, "I could make rules just as good as that". At which point they see through it all--because the RPG rulebook business is a massive game of Emperor's New Clothes.

You don't actually need someone else to write the rules for you. You can make them up. And most of us do, and have, and will again. (How many people house-ruled in a morale system for 3e? And come to that how come a game got released without morale rules in the first place? It's a complete mystery to me.)

You can spend the rest of your life playing a game based on one ruleset. And some of us do, and have, and will keep doing it. You don't need to drop several hundred dollars on the next version--you have to have a reason to do that.

So the real creative work--the value added that designers can really give their customers--lies in campaign worlds and adventures and fluff. I mean, you show me a long-term D&D player, and I'll show you someone who knows who Acererak is. Or Eclavdra, or King Snurre. Someone who remembers all those goblins shouting "Bree-Yark!"...

... so that should be the way games companies look for profit.

Funny, but I'm the exact opposite. I would rather have game companies create the rule set, allowing me time to create my own worlds.

Goes back to what Mike said in his earlier blog posting, you can't really please everyone because the ideal game system is different for each person.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Funny, but I'm the exact opposite. I would rather have game companies create the rule set, allowing me time to create my own worlds.

How many times would you like to re-purchase it?

Do you see yourself as the kind of person who'll be buying 7e in 20 years' time?

 

[IanB]

How many times would you like to re-purchase it?

Do you see yourself as the kind of person who'll be buying 7e in 20 years' time?

I do. I've bought every ruleset so far, I'm not sure why I would necessarily change that pattern, unless they stop improving the game, which for me has not happened yet.

 

[xechnao]

Well, there are some of us who think rulebooks should be free.

The problem is that making most of your money from selling core rulebooks leads to splatbook proliferation, which in turn leads to very cynical customers who think, "I could make rules just as good as that". At which point they see through it all--because the RPG rulebook business is a massive game of Emperor's New Clothes.

You don't actually need someone else to write the rules for you. You can make them up. And most of us do, and have, and will again. (How many people house-ruled in a morale system for 3e? And come to that how come a game got released without morale rules in the first place? It's a complete mystery to me.)

You can spend the rest of your life playing a game based on one ruleset. And some of us do, and have, and will keep doing it. You don't need to drop several hundred dollars on the next version--you have to have a reason to do that.

So the real creative work--the value added that designers can really give their customers--lies in campaign worlds and adventures and fluff. I mean, you show me a long-term D&D player, and I'll show you someone who knows who Acererak is. Or Eclavdra, or King Snurre. Someone who remembers all those goblins shouting "Bree-Yark!"...

... so that should be the way games companies look for profit.

Not quite. For example rules in D&D are not that different from fluff. The basic rule is one: roll 1D20 and check for success if you beat a target number. All the rest is mechanical fluff that somehow though is framed: you can do that or that and each choice means that. So choose what you want to do.
This is D&D's rules concept really. And as you see it is all an expansion of fluff around the D20 vs a target number.