Mark Plemmons said:
You said that many publishers collectively working together strengthens the whole. Ok, I can't disagree with that statement, but I wonder if it really applies. If all d20 publishers were working together on one campaign setting, I would definitely agree. But they're not - they're working on their individual worlds and settings, pulling whatever they feel is appropriate from the SRD and OGL. So you've conceivably got several different versions of the same rules.
This is true. But it would be true anyways. For example, both living imaginations' Twin Crowns and S&SS's Relics & Rituals have ritual rules. I imagine we will also see a large menagarie of rules for other things as well. And games will buy multiple products. And eventually, if they decide to use a certain concept, they will have to decide which version to use.
But when a designer decides "why reinvent the wheel", they may grab another designer's concept and use it in their own game. And it is pleasant an reassuring for the gamer when they pick up
Dragonstar and see that they can use the same rules as Deadlands for automatic weapons, or they sea that
Skull & Crossbones will use the same naval combat system as
Seas of Blood, or that their necromantic priest from
Gar'Udok's can use spells from
Relics & Rituals and
Necromany: Beyond the Grave. (All real examples, mind you.)
And the cream will float to the top.
So I don't think that making it open increases the appeal of the product itself. By throwing in with the open movement can do two things:
- builds your position as part of the network. If a player uses "scaling spells" as part of a product, and knows it comes from your product, they might be more inclined to explore your product.
- makes the rules you use more familiar to others.
Also, I can't speak as to the exact legalities of our contract with WotC, but the OGL didn't even exist when we first made our agreement with them (to make Kingdoms of Kalamar an official D&D world). It wasn't even an option.
Ah, well I didn't know that, and it might have answered my next concern. I thought the timing was similar.
Ok, I really have to question this one. Do you mean that if our products were simply d20, they would be cheaper? If so, that's certainly not the case. We give our fans the best we can, packing our products full of text and info, and keeping them all as affordable as possible.
Is it not true that the cover price reflects a licensing fee that you must pay to Wizards? A licensing fee that you would not have had to pay if it where published under the license-fee free D20 STL?
I'm guessing your last statement clarifies WHY you didn't go that route and also that you can't answer this one, but I am guessing that if Kalamar products where published under the OGL, they would be cheaper.