Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[JohnRTroy]

No, it's a visionary view. Copyright will die soon. 300 years is long enough.

Considering the fact that most nations support WIPO and seeing the economic costs happening because of some corporate stupidity (newspapers are erecting paywalls when they should never have given away their content in the first place, which a lot of players did in the dot com boom thinking eyeballs = profit), I think you're too optimistic with your estimate, assuming the anti-copyright movement doesn't die off as a cultural meme the same way communal living did.

I doubt you'll see it abolished in your lifetime.

 

[Psion]

If the OGL was truly economically beneficial to WoTC, I doubt they would have dropped it.

Hmm.

It could have been beneficial *at the time* *for a WotC not associated with Hasbro*. IOW, the designers at the time knew that the game benefited from small print run items that it didn't make much sense for them to print themselves.

And it might not be economically beneficial for *WotC under Hasbro* *now*, when fantasy online gaming is big business, and Hasbro's business model derives from monetizing IP.

Times and situations are different.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Times and situations are different.

The key thing is, the OGL style of licensing game property is still something brand new, and like anything new, we don't know how well it will work both short and long term.

Ryan was most likely inspired by Open Source software licenses, but what might work for software (because its so complex you need to usually pay for a programmer or for dedicated support) may not work as well for games. (And technically OSS is new too, but so is the concept of software).

Long term effects on things like markets and environment sometimes can't be measured in the lab and/or theoretical modeling. Economics itself is still learning and can be sidetracked by belief in ideology.

The OGL may be a significant part of the future, or it may not and become a very minor force. So far, I think the latter is going to be true. Right now the only advantage it has is for publishers who are using the roots of the 3e SRD.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The OGL may be a significant part of the future, or it may not and become a very minor force. So far, I think the latter is going to be true. Right now the only advantage it has is for publishers who are using the roots of the 3e SRD.

The #1 game in the industry no longer uses it, but even in 3e, WotC didn't make OGL a major part of their philosophy (most of WotC's 3e stuff isn't OGL).

I think it speaks a lot to the effectiveness that the #2 game in the industry is fully embracing it, and the #1 game in the industry still nods in that direction with a slightly muddier, slightly more restrictive, but still-in-spirit-essentially-very-similar kind of licence. As it did with the d20 Licence during 3e.

I don't know how being a part of the two biggest games in the entire PnP RPG industry for a decade qualifies as "a minor force" in any light, but maybe you have some insight I don't.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I don't know how being a part of the two biggest games in the entire PnP RPG industry for a decade qualifies as "a minor force" in any light, but maybe you have some insight I don't.

Well, 4e GSL is definitely not the OGL, so much so that most of the 3pp ended their relationships with WoTC by not going 4e. I think others will agree that the GSL is not an "open" license by any means. Licensing has ALWAYS existed, since Judges Guild licensed D&D. But there were always limits, much more like the typical licensing rights. So, no, WoTC is not supporting "open gaming" as a philosophy anymore. And that's the primary chunk of its use.

If the #2 publisher is Paizo (I thought it was either Games Workshop or White Wolf), then you missed my statement about those "dependent on the 3e edition ruleset". By rights, any ruleset derived from the 3rd Edition has to be OGL--the publishers have no real choice in the matter. And Pathfinder proves to me that the value of the OGL was not based on its openness, but on the relationship to D&D. It's true that the OGL helped Paizo, but Paizo's existance in table top RPGs right now is to continue the game system that WoTC abandoned.

Pathfinder exists in part because WoTC facilitated the creation of Paizo by spinning off their Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and that company ended up benefiting from a lot of the attention as well as ex-WoTC staff. They are not the typical 3pp, because of that once existing relationship. So I don't think they are typical.

If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it. I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.

 

[jmucchiello]

If the OGL was the great force some people thought, then every major publisher should have adopted it, and converted their systems to it. I suspect economically it doesn't make much sense to use it if you don't have to.

Unfortunately the OGL is a flawed experiment. WotC didn't do what they were supposed to do with the OGL. Sure they put it out there and let people play in their pool. But they didn't take any real dips. The real value of the OGL was never exploited by WotC (sort of**). The cause of this was because not everyone was on board with the Open Gaming concept and then the sale to Hasbro had to have put a damper on just how open WotC could be.

The whole point of the OGL was that if you did anything with it, anyone else could build on your stuff --so could WotC but they never did. 3.x could have been a much better game if some of the outside work had been adopted into D&D. But that would have required the D&D books to have the OGL in them and actually do it right. MM2 and UA were too little and too late.

It will be interesting to see if Paizo ever pulls OGL stuff into a Pathfinder release. Since Paizo books already have the OGL in them, it can't hurt to pull some things out of other OGL sources. The line where you are just reprinting other works though does become an issue that makes this a difficult thing to do.

** Of course a lot of 4e is built on innovations done in OGL products and by OGC authors hired by WotC. So saying WotC didn't get value from the OGL is just wrong.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

my two cents

I think copyright in some form has to exist so that artists can eat, but personally I think a 15 year copyright period, nonextendable, would be fine. The existing copyright regime is excessive, and has been crafted to serve a few corporations such as Disney, without regard for the public good.

WRT to the OGL, one substantial benefit in my eyes is that it establishes a floor in how sucky D&D can become. Every version of D&D that gets released in the future now has to compete with the OGL version. And people whose interests don't reflect the mainstream -- those who 'age out of the market', for example -- will have their interests served by niche versions, like Trailblazer.

Without the OGL some of that could still happen, but the lack of a legal safe harbor would leave small publishers vulnerable to being sued out of existence.

Ken

 

[Wicht]

It will be interesting to see if Paizo ever pulls OGL stuff into a Pathfinder release. Since Paizo books already have the OGL in them, it can't hurt to pull some things out of other OGL sources. The line where you are just reprinting other works though does become an issue that makes this a difficult thing to do.

Um, in point of fact Paizo uses OGL material in almost all of their books. And not just OGL material from the WotC SRD either. The Bestiary has stuff from Tome of Horror for instance. They regularly use the Advanced Bestiary in their modules and APs. So if you are interested in seeing if Paizo "ever" does this, wait no longer; they do. Paizo is using the OGL the way it was meant to be used and its not hurting their products a single bit.

 

[BryonD]

Lot's o' disagreement on that point (and I would say not just from me).

Sure. I have no doubt.

To fail to maintain a competitive edge is, I think, a very bad idea.

In the long term I 100% agree with you.

But, I think you mispeak. "Protectionism" is not the same as protecting intellectual property. Protecting intellectual property is a competitive statement: You are forcing competitors to create their own property.

No, I spoke correctly. Relative to the OGL Wotc has moved in a protectionist direction. That is their right.

Even so, there are problems, where your intellectual property is a sandbox for folks to tell stories.

Also, were there ever any truly competing products? For all the talk of open this an open that, the only effect that I could tell was a muddying of product quality. Some was great, and a lot was rather mediocre.

Not that WotC is actually putting out much of the vast IP that they hold.

Thx!

It has nothing to do with product A or Product B being competitive with Wotc's latest Complete XYZ. If X% goes to the 3PP market and 100-X% goes to WotC then the 3PP market is competing. One can argue that 100-x% of a larger pie may be more than 100% of a smaller pie. But if WotC felt that was the case, then they would still be going for the larger pie.

 

[jmucchiello]

Um, in point of fact Paizo uses OGL material in almost all of their books. And not just OGL material from the WotC SRD either. The Bestiary has stuff from Tome of Horror for instance. They regularly use the Advanced Bestiary in their modules and APs. So if you are interested in seeing if Paizo "ever" does this, wait no longer; they do. Paizo is using the OGL the way it was meant to be used and its not hurting their products a single bit.

I meant more of a splat book or core rulebook. Monsters are generally "unique" in that they appear in a specific module for a specific encounter. I want to see some OGC sorcerer bloodlines in a PF Player's Options style book. WotC should have incorporated some 3rd party stuff into 3.5 when they were upgrading the edition in my view of how the OGL failed.