D&D 4E Would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies?

[Mistwell]

I just dont see how you can say that.

Here are the first two positions:

I would only purchase 4E if it were fully open (for example, like the 3.5E OGL)
I would only purchase 4E if it were at least partially open (say, like the d20 license)

That means you combine those two groups. Because if 4E isnt open AT ALL then by those definitions, neither of those two groups buy 4E.

So I would say openness matters alot to those first two groups.

Clark

*Yes, the numbers have changed since I posted.

So we should hold a second poll.

Option 1 will be "I will buy 4e regardless of 3rd parties being able to make 4e products"

Option 2 will be "I will buy 4e as long as some 3rd parties can make 4e products (I don't care if it's through openness or special licensing)".

Option 3 will be "I will only buy 4e if it is at least somewhat open"

Option 4 will be "I will only buy 4e if it is fully open"

Option 5 will be "I won't be buying 4e regardless"

Option 6 will be "Other".

How much you want to bet you get results that run contrary to your above assumption? I am betting openness itself doesn't matter to people nearly as much as the ability of 3rd parties to make 4e products in some manner. The difference between "Openness" and "Special License" is subtle enough that your average player just doesn't care nearly as much as us lawyers or game makers care about that topic.

 

[Harshax]

How much you want to bet you get results that run contrary to your above assumption? I am betting openness itself doesn't matter to people nearly as much as the ability of 3rd parties to make 4e products in some manner. The difference between "Openness" and "Special License" is subtle enough that your average player just doesn't care nearly as much as us lawyers or game makers care about that topic.

I haven't voted, but I do care about some level of licensing. Specifically, I would like 3rd party support for world design, adventures, and add-on products, and possibly different genres [sci-fi, horror, western, space opera, steam punk] I've never been so keen of riff's of the player's handbook to fit certain genre's of fantasy, as this always seemed to interfere with absorbing the setting, and presented another learning curve for rules. Besides, I think we already have a clue on how to tweak fantasy simply but removing classes based on certain power sources.

 

[Mistwell]

I haven't voted, but I do care about some level of licensing.

Right. But do you care if that license comes through an Open Gaming License or a Special License? My point is that I think most people don't care what type of license it is, as long as it's a license to make product.

 

[Harshax]

Right. But do you care if that license comes through an Open Gaming License or a Special License? My point is that I think most people don't care what type of license it is, as long as it's a license to make product.

I would agree with that assumption. Maybe their will be 'levels' of licensing. A license to produce adventures or supplements for the default D&D world, a license to create campaign sourcebooks, and another license to riff on the core books.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I pre ordered 4e all the way back when they said something along the lines of 4e not having d20 SL and 4e ogl was something like d20 SL. I probably would waited had I known what I know now (that being less then what I knew then)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I will buy it.

I would prefer 3rd parties involved, although i never bought any 3rd Party product. But i believe in a market, where you "compete" and cooperate to make better products for all (who can then decide which books to buy).

What prevented me to buy most books (WoTC or not) was power creep and too tight focus on useless prestige classes, which finally killed 3.x for me...

 

[primarchone]

So we should hold a second poll.

Option 1 will be "I will buy 4e regardless of 3rd parties being able to make 4e products"

Option 2 will be "I will buy 4e as long as some 3rd parties can make 4e products (I don't care if it's through openness or special licensing)".

Option 3 will be "I will only buy 4e if it is at least somewhat open"

Option 4 will be "I will only buy 4e if it is fully open"

Option 5 will be "I won't be buying 4e regardless"

Option 6 will be "Other".

How much you want to bet you get results that run contrary to your above assumption? I am betting openness itself doesn't matter to people nearly as much as the ability of 3rd parties to make 4e products in some manner. The difference between "Openness" and "Special License" is subtle enough that your average player just doesn't care nearly as much as us lawyers or game makers care about that topic.

Hi!

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the MAJORITY (easily 2-3 to 1) of people don't care about "openness". For many its an abstract concept with little bearing on their purchases.

It's funny how many view OGL as some sort of entitlement. It's not. It was, in simplistic terms, a "gift". WOTC are not obligated to repeat that again. D&D existed perfectly fine for years without it.

The only reason for them to continue it would be if it was proven that doing it made them money. Evidence of which seems to be pretty lacking.

I played D&D happily for years without OGL, I can play it again without it as well.

Primarchone

 

[drjones]

Personally I will not buy a lawnmower unless it is open source.

Needless to say my lawn is getting kind of bushy.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I agree. Proprietary machines and hardware are impossible to fix via retail ;p

 

[Orcus]

Hi!

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe the MAJORITY (easily 2-3 to 1) of people don't care about "openness". For many its an abstract concept with little bearing on their purchases.

It's funny how many view OGL as some sort of entitlement. It's not. It was, in simplistic terms, a "gift". WOTC are not obligated to repeat that again. D&D existed perfectly fine for years without it.

The only reason for them to continue it would be if it was proven that doing it made them money. Evidence of which seems to be pretty lacking.

I played D&D happily for years without OGL, I can play it again without it as well.

Primarchone

I agree with you, to some degree.

I, obviously in my playing for 30 years, played D&D most of the time while it was closed.

But unlike you who remembers only a situation where it goes "closed to now open" I remember the GOLDEN AGE of D&D when it was open (or at least licensed) back in the days when Judges Guild and other companies offered me choices beyond just what TSR was offering me--things like the Wilderlands and the City State and Tegel Manor and all sorts of great adventures.

So please remember that your view point of "closed to open so its a gift" is not the view of all D&D players. MANY of us remember "open to long period of closed where TSR brought the game down back to open again Yay! Wizards is doing it right." Many of us see a return to the original glory and support and choice for D&D.

And, in my view, there is no doubt that is what the OGL has done for D&D.

So while I dont disagree that sometimes you hear publishers make comments that sound like entitlement, please recall that though the OGL is a new way to achieve support by third parties, the idea of third party support is not new and in fact to lots of people represents the pinnacle of D&D.

You might have played D&D happily without the OGL for years. But, if you've played for a long time, you certainly remember playing with third party products before, and those were the very best days of D&D.