Mike Mearls On the OGL

[carmachu]

Mister Mearls is a talented game designer but i have t oquestion the notion of OGL failure. Or the notion the "experiment" was even close to failure.

Arcan Evolved/Unearthed, Conan, Iron Heroes, Castles & Crusades, True 20, Cthulhu-D20, Mutants and Mastermindsand Spycraft. Were not OGL failures.

Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Troll Lord Games, Malhavoc Press, Goodman Games, RPG-objects and Mongoose and more were not OGL failures.

The OGL was a smashing success. It just wasn't all flowing into the pockets of WOTC.

"Problems" were not universally identified and fixed in the same manner because of the open nature of the beast. Not all issues are a problem in all circles. Art does not have one solution or response to a problem. RPGs are not software.

Yup. I find Merles words to be more spin on teh heals of the terrible GSL that was released.....

 

[Keith Robinson]

I think the true success or failure of the OGL will be how it stands up now that it is no longer officially supported by WotC (or, if you prefer, now WotC have washed their hands of it). There have already been a raft of excellent stand alone products produced using the OGL and with Pathfinder still to come, who knows what else we'll see in the future?

For Mike Mearls to say it has been a failure really shouldn't be seen as that much of a surprise - it all seems part of the present WotC war on the OGL. I don't blame them for that, but I think it's the very success of the OGL that has brought about this attempt to discredit and marginilize it. Of course, I find it somehwhat ironic that Mearls, who made his name designing OGL products, should now have the nerve to tell us how unsuccessful it was.

 

[Glyfair]

Second, WotC decided that the OGL was their enemy a while ago.

I disagree with this. It's clear this was true with certain factions in WotC (and later Hasbro). However, it's equally true that they are strong supporters within the company. WotC's problem is that this internal powerplay makes it hard to get things done (look at the attempt to get the GSL out the door since last August).

 

[Mark]

The OGL cannot fail the community; the original licenser, as licensee, ceased supporting the OGL as fully as it had at the outset. It is not a failure of the license that no one is forced to utilize it. Licensees can fail to use it, or fail to use it correctly, but the license itself cannot fail because it cannot be revoked. Licensees can have failures or successes, and the community as beneficiary can have times of disappointment and satisfaction, but the license itself is merely a tool used to produce those results.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the true success or failure of the OGL will be how it stands up now that it is no longer officially supported by WotC (or, if you prefer, now WotC have washed their hands of it). There have already been a raft of excellent stand alone products produced using the OGL and with Pathfinder still to come, who knows what else we'll see in the future?

For Mike Mearls to say it has been a failure really shouldn't be seen as that much of a surprise - it all seems part of the present WotC war on the OGL. I don't blame them for that, but I think it's the very success of the OGL that has brought about this attempt to discredit and marginilize it. Of course, I find it somehwhat ironic that Mearls, who made his name designing OGL products, should now have the nerve to tell us how unsuccessful it was.

He wrote that an important part of the OGL success he sees was the fact that it trained new game designers.

The failures of the OGL he sees lie elsewhere. He is not saying that the OGL was a bad idea or total failure. He says it has successful aspects and failed aspects.

 

[BryonD]

I disagree with this. It's clear this was true with certain factions in WotC (and later Hasbro). However, it's equally true that they are strong supporters within the company. WotC's problem is that this internal powerplay makes it hard to get things done (look at the attempt to get the GSL out the door since last August).

I'm not talking about the voices of individuals within the company.
The moves that WotC took were on the anti-OGL side.
You may be able to claim that it was pure 50/50 internally and the tie simply went to the "do nothing" side. But that still perfectly fits my point.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

No publisher did the job and tried to recompile all of that into a singular D&D-esque game. Grim Tales, for example, is cool, but it's also a niche product for Grim & Gritty - it's not D&D Deluxe.

First of all, I'd argue that AU/AE is certainly a singular D&D-esque game.

But more to the point, it's hard to blame the publishers for not pissing in WotCs pool.

There were plenty of great rules innovations that WotC could have incorporated into D&D. That they chose not to is not a failure of the OGL.

I would love to see Pathfinder take up this mantle but, as others have pointed out, it has backwards compatibility issues.

WotC and WotC alone was in a position to bring OGC into the core of D&D, to make the hard decisions about what needed changing and what did not, and push it out so that it would be accepted.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The failures of the OGL he sees lie elsewhere. He is not saying that the OGL was a bad idea or total failure. He says it has successful aspects and failed aspects.

Some people have some very selective reading.

In the end, it failed to achieve the same type of success as open source software.

But then later he says:

That alone makes it a success.

Basically he's saying: it failed in one area (that he deems important), but overall it is a success.

Don't bemoan him as anti-OGL people. If anyone is pro-OGL, its Mike Mearls!

 

[redcard]

I think the true judgment on whether or not the OGL has failed lies not with Pathfinder or other 3.5/3.0 derivs. I think to see whether the license is a failure or not, we'll need to see other games using completely different systems become successful at it.

Yes, the d20 derivs ARE important. But Linux isn't successful as opensource because Linus wrote the kernel and released it under the GPL. It's successful because a compiler was under the GPL, a display engine is under a Free License, a web browser is open source, a desktop system is under the GPL...

It's not just one system that needs to be open for the "Open source" mentality to be successful in gaming. It's many successful systems that need to be open. And it needs to prove viability with those systems being open.

One thing I have learned about being an opensource developer.. and that is you do a lot of things for love first and money second. It's important to understand that a commercial entity entering into Open products must have altruism or long term goals in mind.

Personally, I am more in favor of "Data/Engine" type open source for game systems. Similar to what Id Software did with their past engines, they released it open source. However, the data files that run in those engines are still retained as IP.

I think for Open RPGs to really have a chance at mimicing the Open nature of opensource software, it will require a license that's more viral, one that makes anything engine related open by rule.

 

[hexgrid]

I don't think it's fair to say that open gaming was a failure, it just took a different path in gaming when compared to software.

It's strange how many people in this thread claim to disagree with mearls, but counter with the exact argument he was making.