Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events

[TheFindus]

Yes. They did think about a new edition. They also created the OGL so that when they were not there, they could be assured that Dungeons and Dragons continued in a form they liked. They are also, today, funnily enough, the competition, so to speak. So for them it was a smart business decision.

I am not sure, but aren't you the one who said that WotC is "people" and the "people" have changed at WotC, so WotC is not an entity (or something like that, I might not remember correctly)?

Well, if you work for a company in a managing position, you have to act according to the needs and interests of that company. Duty is a big word here for me. We know that some managers do not do that, but I never would have guessed that you think the decision makers at WotC back then were these kind of "people". But wait, then again, for you it was a good decision, because you still play the game "they" like. But whether you like 3rd edition or not does not really matter here.

If they really thought that 3rd edition was the edition they liked and wanted this edition to stay around without the future "people" at WotC having any say in the matter, "they" accomplished their mission. But if you are right, but I am not sure you are, then they made the wrong decision about the best interest of the company that they worked for at the time, which was WotC.

 

[Wicht]

I am not sure, but aren't you the one who said that WotC is "people" and the "people" have changed at WotC, so WotC is not an entity (or something like that, I might not remember correctly)?

Right. Which is still my point.

Who are the individuals who created and promoted the OGL?

I think, by and large, if you look at who was at WotC at that time you will find that some of them are still benefitting from the OGL in some way or another.

Now, one could make the argument that it was unethical for them to create a license which allowed for them to benefit from that license after they left the company. You could make that arguement but I think it would be wrong. If I create a product and I work for an entity with legal control over that product, if I can legally create a situation in which I can continue to benefit from my own work after I leave the company, that is not a bad decision, nor is it unethical to do so.

WotC has been hurt by the OGL. I think we can all agree on that. But it is a self inflicted wound which is not the fault of the OGL itself. The OGL did not have to hurt them and they could have used it to their advantage. But the people who came after the people who came after the people who created the OGL thought that they could bypass it and work around it. Which was just foolish. You have to deal with the business realities created by the people who came before you.

As has been pointed out, if WotC had created and released a game which was better than the game had been under the OGL, the OGL would not have mattered. Likewise if they had continued to use the OGL, they would still be beneffiting from it. But they did exactly the wrong things considering the market and the existance of the OGL.

 

[El Mahdi]

...As has been pointed out, if WotC had created and released a game which was better than the game had been under the OGL, the OGL would not have mattered. Likewise if they had continued to use the OGL, they would still be beneffiting from it. But they did exactly the wrong things considering the market and the existance of the OGL.

Good Points! I agree with everything you've said, except for partial agreement with this. I don't believe it's possible to create a game that's "better". What gamers find good or bad is purely subjective. The way 4E was designed had as much to do with feedback from players who had issues with 3.x, as it did with marketing decisions. When it comes to making a new system, I believe you can make one that's worse, but "better" in a universal and objective way...No. As much as 4E isn't my preferred flavor, I don't think it's a bad game. On the contrary, I think it's a really good game - but of course, everyone has parts of every game they don't like, even as concerns their preferred system. It's impossible to make a game that everybody will like, or even that anybody will like absolutely (unless you're making a game for yourself). Not accepting that RPG fact of life, and ceasing support for older editions because of it, is why they lost customers - along with other reasons (though I'm sure they did gain new customers...only WotC knows if they gained more than they lost, or vice-versa).

But I completely agree that WotC could have avoided a lot of the problems they had if 4E had been OGL. It would have generated more 3pp support resulting in increased and more sustained sales of core material. And they could have learned from the 3.x era, and better mined 3pp products for popular ideas to implement on a broader scale (the advantage of being WotC and D&D). And maintaining some older edition support, even limited, would have helped hang on to players that weren't going to switch for any reason. Not to mention the overall goodwill such approaches would have generated (and although hard to quantifiy, and debatable wether goodwill does or does not result in more revenue, it's a certainty that ill will does reduce revenue).

 

[BryonD]

I agree with everything you've said, except for partial agreement with this. I don't believe it's possible to create a game that's "better". What gamers find good or bad is purely subjective. The way 4E was designed had as much to do with feedback from players who had issues with 3.x, as it did with marketing decisions. When it comes to making a new system, I believe you can make one that's worse, but "better" in a universal and objective way...No.

"Better" at being fun for "Gamer A" is subjective.

"Better" at getting a lot of people to consistently play, and more importantly, consistently spend is more objective and can, at least, be approximated.

I'm pretty sure Wicht is referencing me, and that is what I am talking about.

I do not remotely question that there are many individuals for whom 4E is the ultimate "betterestest" game ever. But it still could have been a better game if you are a WotC beancounter.

 

[TheFindus]

Now, one could make the argument that it was unethical for them to create a license which allowed for them to benefit from that license after they left the company. You could make that arguement but I think it would be wrong. If I create a product and I work for an entity with legal control over that product, if I can legally create a situation in which I can continue to benefit from my own work after I leave the company, that is not a bad decision, nor is it unethical to do so.

Oh, if "they" knew that it would cause trouble for later editions WotC, the company that payed them, would create but did it anyway to be able to profit from it at the time when they would not be working for "them" anymore, it is unethical. Because they are harming the company.
Now, I am not sure if they really thought that, though.
But if you think it is not and would have done something like that - I do not know if I should read your thread like this though - than I would not want you to work for my company.

Tss, and people on these boards claim we lawyers are a bad bunch....

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Tss, and people on these boards claim we lawyers are a bad bunch....

I know that attending UT's law school almost made me change my alignment to LE...but I made my save. CG RULES!*




* well, some rules...the ones we like, anyway. But don't hold us to that, man!

 

[billd91]

WotC has been hurt by the OGL. I think we can all agree on that. But it is a self inflicted wound which is not the fault of the OGL itself. The OGL did not have to hurt them and they could have used it to their advantage. But the people who came after the people who came after the people who created the OGL thought that they could bypass it and work around it. Which was just foolish. You have to deal with the business realities created by the people who came before you.

As has been pointed out, if WotC had created and released a game which was better than the game had been under the OGL, the OGL would not have mattered. Likewise if they had continued to use the OGL, they would still be beneffiting from it. But they did exactly the wrong things considering the market and the existance of the OGL.

I was going to say that I don't think we can conclusively say that WotC was hurt by the OGL, but then your next paragraph gets to the point I was going to make. I think they could certainly still be benefiting from the OGL, even with a new edition, with different business strategies than the ones they are pursuing now.
They made a choice to move away from the OGL strategy, and maybe that's burning them a bit now. But I don't believe it had to be that way at all.

 

[El Mahdi]

Food Points!

I'm a food speller!

 

[Zil]

Oh, if "they" knew that it would cause trouble for later editions WotC, the company that payed them, would create but did it anyway to be able to profit from it at the time when they would not be working for "them" anymore, it is unethical. Because they are harming the company.
Now, I am not sure if they really thought that, though.
But if you think it is not and would have done something like that - I do not know if I should read your thread like this though - than I would not want you to work for my company.

I don't think the employees of WotC made the initial OGL out of personal self-interest. WotC believed (rightly) that the OGL would create a huge ecosystem with themselves at the centre of it and they profited from it. Sure, some of those at WoTC back when the OGL was created believed that the OGL would also help protect the game (i.e. D&D ) from future management decisions. Even if that was their primary motivation, the fact that it was still also clearly a profitable (to WotC) concept, you can't say it is truly an unethical decision or even a bad decision in the 3E context.

Back to my work example. When we open-sourced our software system one of our goals was to ensure that the software could survive future bad senior management decisions. We weren't acting in our own interests. Rather, we were ensuring that even if management were to wreck our project group (which produces critical Search and Rescue software), there was a better chance that the software could survive in some form. Of course there were many other reasons to go open-source, but self-interest certainly wasn't one of them nor do I believe what we did was unethical.

As has been hashed out in earlier messages, I do not believe that the OGL had to hurt 4E. 4E released under the OGL would have been a much more sane decision for WotC. If any management made mistakes, it is the current crop - not those who were around in 1999. I believe you are pointing your finger at the wrong people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But it was only a strength because people wanted to play that game more.

I agree.

3.5Ed was a huge success. A followup to something like that is incredibly difficult.

Think of what it was like for Danny White to follow Roger Staubach in the Cowboys. How easy was it for John Elway to win back to back Superbowls?

Think about being the guitarist asked to replace Eric Clapton in the Yardbirds. Then, after Jeff Beck did such a good job, he leaves, and you're the next guy. You're Jimmy Page. You leave to form Led Zeppelin...and what happens to your former bandmates?

What was it like to run for President of the USA after George Washington? After Thomas Jefferson?

And so forth.

Now think of all the people in similar situations who DIDN'T succeed.

The point is, whenever you're competing against massive successes- even your own- there are all kinds of pitfalls and traps. Many are internal (self-doubts), but others are the problems with selling a new product to a previously happy audience.