Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?

[dmccoy1693]

dmmccoy and Brown Jenkin, if you all understand me then stop taking the conversation back to theory like broken records.

The thing is is that you are not understanding our points. For example:

If you can't carry the conversation forward, then I think we can accept that one possible scenario to WOTC's motives is that WOTC failed to benefit effectively from the OGL, whether you agree or not.

I can't accept this because I do not agree with it. I believe WotC has benefitted effectively from the OGL and they are keenly aware of it.

If you want to offer your own claims, feel free, but stop arguing against mine unless you can provide proof that WOTC did indeed benefit from the OGL.

If you really need it spelled out for you:

Benefit #1: Mike Mearls. If it weren't for the OGL, would he have become as big and well known in the community as he was? If he hadn't, who would have been the lead designer of 4E? Sure someone else would have, but frankly, the OGL allowed for a rather large pool of writers for WotC to pick from.

Benefit #2: Necromancer Games. This is only one example, but it is emblematic of companies that fulfilled niches that WotC did not see a large enough customer base for them to make products for. If you do not feel this is a large enough benefit, consider this: the changes to the GSL are largely for Necromancer Games. Necro is the only one of the major 5 that is "on the fence." Paizo and GR said they would consider doing 4E stuff, but they are predominantly occupied with making stuff for their own systems and will not shed a tear if no changes are made. Mongoose and Goodman are onboard. Necromancer is the only one of the 5 begging Wizards to revise it and they have responded. That is how much they mean to Wizards.

(EDITTED IN: Clark has said time and again that ALOT of people have emailed him over the years saying that they don't care for WOTC D&D, but they love what Necromancer has done and they now play D&D because of it. TRANSLATION: Necromancer helps sell WotC books.)

Scenario 2: WOTC is the most wicked organization in the world and wants only to screw everyone they possibly can (care of dmccoy).
Scenario 3: WOTC gets off on having the power to crush companies at will (care of dmccoy)

I'm reporting your post for this. Unless you can prove that I said WotC "gets off" or is "the most wicked orginization in the world", I suggest you revise your post before a mod does something.

dmccoy: considering your point about making it easier for old players to return, yes that may be true, because the changes ripple through the industry, and thus those players see it, but I don't think the original 1e crowd was so significant that it would affect their bottom line much at all.

Emphasis mine. This is proof positive that you do not understand what I am saying nor the OGL theory.

Benefit #3 (and the main reason why the OGL was created in the first place): The OGL is not about bringing in 1E players. Its about keeping current players close.

Hypothetical: If I played 3E and grew tired of it and wanted to play a super hero game, what would my choices be. Silver Age Sentinals, Marvel Superheroes and a few others ... or I could play Mutants and Masterminds, by GR. As a 3E gamer, I already understand the basic system so it'll take less time for me to learn it. And whenever I get tired of superheroes, I can always go back to D&D. System is still fresh in my mind so why not.

Now say there was no way for GR to make the modifications necessary to the core book to make M&M. Say they couldn't make system changes or redefine the way classes worked. Would it be the same game? Hell, would it even resemble the game it is right now? Probably not. So say GR just gave up on the idea and didn't make M&M. Where would I have gone for a superhero game? Silver Age Sentinals, probably. Once I was that far away from D&D, would I go back to D&D? Possibly, but the chances of me never returning to D&D are much more likely.

That above example is a license problem, not a system problem.

 

[Corjay]

I'm reporting your post for this. Unless you can prove that I said WotC "gets off" or is "the most wicked orginization in the world", I suggest you revise your post before a mod does something.

Edited. That's how I interpreted you accusations against WOTC's motives. But per your request, I removed the credit to you.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Edited. That's how I interpreted you accusations against WOTC's motives. But per your request, I removed the credit to you.

Your post is still reported, it is still trolling comments.

 

[Corjay]

The thing is is that you are not understanding our points...I can't accept this because I do not agree with it. I believe WotC has benefitted effectively from the OGL and they are keenly aware of it.

You believe, I believe, so you just feel like going around in circles with an argument that doesn't make ground just because you don't agree? Then if you just want to argue endlessly without making ground, there would be no point, except that I accept that you made slight progress with the next point...

If you really need it spelled out for you:

Benefit #1: Mike Mearls. If it weren't for the OGL, would he have become as big and well known in the community as he was? If he hadn't, who would have been the lead designer of 4E? Sure someone else would have, but frankly, the OGL allowed for a rather large pool of writers for WotC to pick from.

Mike very likely got into his position for other reasons, not simply for whatever role he played in getting the OGL instituted. You have to already have the pull to influence heads to such a great change in operation as instituting the OGL. It's the idea that the pool of writers to choose from was improved by the OGL that I accept as a benefit. The larger the pool of writers, the better the quality that can be provided and thus the more interest in those products, especially with names that have become big in the d20 branch of the industry in other games.

Benefit #2: Necromancer Games. This is only one example, but it is emblematic of companies that fulfilled niches that WotC did not see a large enough customer base for them to make products for. If you do not feel this is a large enough benefit, consider this: the changes to the GSL are largely for Necromancer Games. Necro is the only one of the major 5 that is "on the fence." Paizo and GR said they would consider doing 4E stuff, but they are predominantly occupied with making stuff for their own systems and will not shed a tear if no changes are made. Mongoose and Goodman are onboard. Necromancer is the only one of the 5 begging Wizards to revise it and they have responded. That is how much they mean to Wizards.

(EDITTED IN: Clark has said time and again that ALOT of people have emailed him over the years saying that they don't care for WOTC D&D, but they love what Necromancer has done and they now play D&D because of it. TRANSLATION: Necromancer helps sell WotC books.)

I'll accept that as a minor example of WOTC's benefit, but seeing as it has the same effect for other games in the market

Emphasis mine. This is proof positive that you do not understand what I am saying nor the OGL theory.

You referred to people who left the game, I assumed you meant those who left 2e. I should have considered your post a little more carefully. But what does that so-called misunderstanding of your point have anything to do with the OGL theory? I was simply addressing a single fine point, making a minor concession, in your argument. My statement was not a commentary on the purpose of the OGL or its theory.

Benefit #3 (and the main reason why the OGL was created in the first place): The OGL is not about bringing in 1E players. Its about keeping current players close.

Hypothetical: If I played 3E and grew tired of it and wanted to play a super hero game, what would my choices be. Silver Age Sentinals, Marvel Superheroes and a few others ... or I could play Mutants and Masterminds, by GR. As a 3E gamer, I already understand the basic system so it'll take less time for me to learn it. And whenever I get tired of superheroes, I can always go back to D&D. System is still fresh in my mind so why not.

Now say there was no way for GR to make the modifications necessary to the core book to make M&M. Say they couldn't make system changes or redefine the way classes worked. Would it be the same game? Hell, would it even resemble the game it is right now? Probably not. So say GR just gave up on the idea and didn't make M&M. Where would I have gone for a superhero game? Silver Age Sentinals, probably. Once I was that far away from D&D, would I go back to D&D? Possibly, but the chances of me never returning to D&D are much more likely.

That above example is a license problem, not a system problem.

Look, you're the one who brought up bringing back past players as indicated by the rest of your post. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your meaning as applying to 1e. Thank you for clarifying. As for the whole intent of your number 3, again, another small step, only because it accomplishes the raising of the waters scenario.

Taken together, they make a single effective step towards profit. But I can still contend that it provides nothing but floating. So even if this was the intent, there was room for more. So I will concede in light of your finally careful argument that the OGL worked exactly as intended, but I will not concede that it wasn't a flawed document in that more advantage could have been taken to raise WOTC's bottom line through the license, but wasn't, and I believe it is that problem which WOTC wishes to amend in the GSL.

 

[Corjay]

Your post is still reported, it is still trolling comments.

Fine. I changed it to something I know I can prove was said and with no attribution. Now stop reporting me or I'll report you for targeting me.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Unless someone has a legitimate and direct response to my query, then don't bother responding.

You seem to be asking for proof that a single marketing expense out of a much larger marketing budget directly led to a quantifiable increase in the bottom line that could be directly attributed to that single marketing expense and no other. Is it me, or are you asking for the impossible. Because not only are the only people who can give you what you seem to be asking for (WotC's accountants) never going to make such number public . . . but I don't know how any one marketing expense practically dependent upon word of mouth can be attributed to exact numbers of sold product.

I think that if the OGL did not contribute anything to WotC's bottom line then we wouldn't even see the GSL.

 

[Corjay]

I already got what I asked for as per dmccoy's last post. The concession has been made. There's no more need to ask about what kind of proof I'm asking for. Besides, I only asked for it because it was my "belief" vs. their "belief" and I was on higher ground at the moment. As demonstrated by dmccoy, my request was not as complicated as you're making it sound.

 

[jmucchiello]

Mike very likely got into his position for other reasons, not simply for whatever role he played in getting the OGL instituted. You have to already have the pull to influence heads to such a great change in operation as instituting the OGL. It's the idea that the pool of writers to choose from was improved by the OGL that I accept as a benefit. The larger the pool of writers, the better the quality that can be provided and thus the more interest in those products, especially with names that have become big in the d20 branch of the industry in other games.

Um, Mike Mearls did not work for WotC when the OGL was created. He was hired by WotC after freelancing for the 3PPs who would not have existed without the OGL. His major claim to fame before working at WotC was authoring Iron Heroes, an OGL only game.

If you can accept that vetting designers on someone else's dime is a benefit of the OGL, how much money did WotC benefit from it? Bottom line dollars. When you can answer that, I'll get back to you on how much money the OGL earned them in gained sales.

 

[CapnZapp]

Corjay,

I think one way to make this thread as constructive as possible is if you were to introduce your stance, where you're coming from, and your aims for the thread.

I would say you are far too well-spoken to be dismissed as a mere troll, and telling us more about your motives for the discussions you start would go a long way of dispelling the suspicions you're having a hidden agenda. (Again, this is only me being open about my own impressions, and I don't talk for anybody else but me.)

As it is now, you're being cornered because (again, in my personal opinion) you're coming across as something of an Wizards/GSL apologist.

The "yes, the GSL has its flaws, but look how nice and shiny these bits are" is not a view you can expect people to warm up to. Neither is speculations on benevolent schemes of Wizards'. Not with the GSL as its written today.

So, what did (and do) you expect from this thread?

Respectfully,
Zapp

 

[dmccoy1693]

Mike very likely got into his position for other reasons, not simply for whatever role he played in getting the OGL instituted. You have to already have the pull to influence heads to such a great change in operation as instituting the OGL. It's the idea that the pool of writers to choose from was improved by the OGL that I accept as a benefit. The larger the pool of writers, the better the quality that can be provided and thus the more interest in those products, especially with names that have become big in the d20 branch of the industry in other games.

Um, Mike Mearls did not work for WotC when the OGL was created. He was hired by WotC after freelancing for the 3PPs who would not have existed without the OGL. His major claim to fame before working at WotC was authoring Iron Heroes, an OGL only game.

I should spell out that Iron Heroes, by being an OGL only game, means that it would be considered an "abuse" of the OGL by your standards. Again, this is what the OGL was designed to do so it is not an abuse.

To be honest, Corjoy, you really are giving off the impression that you are not very well informed as to the history of d20 (and things that lead up to it). You didn't know how the OGL and d20 license interacted, you didn't know one of the main goals of the OGL was to create other games stand alone games that used basics of the d20 system, but not the actual license. You don't even know who Mike Mearls is or how he got his start in the industry. But you're arguing against our points with all furvor. (Incase you're wondering, Mearls is kind of the Eminem of the RPG industry, started off as just an average guy who could write well and wrote some stuff and got discovered by one of the industry heavy weights and started working for them.) (Just curious, but have you heard of the Dragonlance SAGA system or knew that Spelljammer was in a different system then D&D? I'm asking about the systems, not if you've heard of Dragonlance or Spelljammer, just to make sure we're clear.)

If you really want to have a discussion about the virtues of OGL/d20 vs GSL, I highly recommend you first educate yourself on the past 8 years so you can genuinely argue what the OGL has and has not done.

EDIT: Wahoo! 1000 posts!!!