Still one make-or-break issue for me...

[darjr]

the ogl is big issue with me. without such a license I'd likely pass for something I already like and am invested in.

however could the designers be doing an end run? interesting idea, maybe they are making a game that the 3e ogl could cover for third party products, if that's true I might reconsider.

 

[Sanglorian]

And this is the disconnect between what keeps being posted on EnWorld and what is likely to happen - our beliefs don't matter. What matters is what the WOTC decision makers think. And we have ample evidence that they don't believe the OGL was good for their business.

Try thinking of it this way. You're attempting to sell something to a customer. The customer doesn't think the product is of value to them. You can: 1) tell the customer that you believe it's a great value and the customer should, of course, take your word for it, or 2) you can address the customer's specific concerns. If we want an OGL, we have to address the issue from WOTC's point of view, not ours.

Where are you getting this information about Wizards' specific concerns that we are supposed to address? Where have Wizards' outlined their point of view?

Why do you believe that Wizards' point of view is that the OGL is bad for their business? They presumably thought that going in to 4E; they may not still think that.

Furthermore, I don't want an OGL that 'addresses the issue from WOTC's point of view', or at least your interpretation of Wizards' point of view (no competing games, no repackaged rules, no competing electronic tools). That would be no OGL at all—as I said above, it would look just like the GSL and I don't want that licence again.

Finally, you can sell product by convincing people that that product is good for them. In fact, it happens at least as often as the second option you suggested—responding to the perceived wishes of the customer.

Which is why I tend to give greater deference to WOTC's opinion than ours. They do have the hard data.

Could they have misintepreted it? Of course. But more often than not, it's the group with good data that will have a better handle on things than the group without it. As I've said many times, the plural of anecdotes is not data, and just because something was good for the hobby doesn't mean it's a good business decision for WOTC.

We don't know what Wizards' current opinion is.

Wizards had the data in 2000 when they decided to go with the OGL, and they had the data in 2008 when they decided to go with the GSL. Presumably, they misinterpreted the data in at least one of those two occasions. You asked for hard evidence that the OGL is preferable to the alternatives. What hard evidence would you like us to provide?

 

[tomBitonti]

Re: Comparisons with Paizo, I wonder if Hasbro/WotC and Paizo have different requirements as to their returns? As a rough analogy, the difference between having two or a dozen children to feed? My understanding is that Paizo uses different channels for its products (a subscription, direct to market strategy?) Those different channels have much less overhead. Also, Paizo is a much smaller and focused organization. Hasbro/WotC has the added layers and inefficiency of a large corporation. Also, Hasbro is publicly traded (symbol HAS), whereas Paizo doesn't seem to be (I don't find a symbol for them.)

Also: Wouldn't an open license have created problems for paced release model adopted for the 4E core books? I don't see folks waiting several years to get all of the power sources. An open model would allow third parties to release new power sources ahead of the core books. Similarly, wouldn't an open license open the gate to third party tools that would compete with the online database and tools?

TomB

 

[Croesus]

Why do you believe that Wizards' point of view is that the OGL is bad for their business?

There have been multiple statements by folks who did have access to this info explaining how WOTC management believed the OGL was a mistake.

We don't know what Wizards' current opinion is.

Agreed. Since we haven't heard anything different, I'm going on the assumption that their opinion hasn't changed. I could be wrong - we won't know until DDN is published.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's always nice to find points of commonality with another poster, especially one with whom one often disagrees. In this context, I'm very pleased to note that I agree with every last word of [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]' last post

One of the great things about the (currently missing) XP system is the opportunity to provide positive feedback for other posters' specific posts. Having just checked on the WotC boards today, I am reminded of why I gave them up, and why ENW has a better culture.

We don't know what Wizards' current opinion is.

Wizards had the data in 2000 when they decided to go with the OGL, and they had the data in 2008 when they decided to go with the GSL. Presumably, they misinterpreted the data in at least one of those two occasions. You asked for hard evidence that the OGL is preferable to the alternatives. What hard evidence would you like us to provide?

Good points

Re: Comparisons with Paizo, I wonder if Hasbro/WotC and Paizo have different requirements as to their returns? As a rough analogy, the difference between having two or a dozen children to feed? My understanding is that Paizo uses different channels for its products (a subscription, direct to market strategy?) Those different channels have much less overhead. Also, Paizo is a much smaller and focused organization. Hasbro/WotC has the added layers and inefficiency of a large corporation. Also, Hasbro is publicly traded (symbol HAS), whereas Paizo doesn't seem to be (I don't find a symbol for them.)

It's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, no. And WotC definitely has had unrealistic and unreasonable goals for D&D. However, the relative state of the two companies is still very telling.

 

[P1NBACK]

Posted this on Google+ and I'll repost here.

WotC needs to harness the exact power that's killing them: individual creativity.

D&D has always been about that, with homebrew worlds, campaigns, adventures, monsters, etc. It's just, people didn't really have a way to publish to the masses.

With the OGL and so many different creations out there that take advantage of it and the ease of internet publishing, now WotC isn't just competing with Paizo or whatever, but all of the amazing creative minds out there. Just take a look at all of the amazing, talented work coming out right now. Why would I buy the next generic WotC adventure when I can buy Hammers of the Gods?

So, what can WotC do? They can "publish" it all.

Create D&D Next as a hub for all that content. Create a barebones, lean and clean system that can be hacked to pieces and then provide a sort of "App Store" for D&D Mods / Hacks / Adventures / Settings / etc. And, use an App Store-like system for ratings, reviews, featured content, etc.

There are some hurdles of course. They'll need guidelines on PDF design and logos and all that. But, people were fine using the OGL - why not this system? And, instead of leaving the OGL out there for someone to make money off of the game without WotC getting a cut, WotC can actually profit by taking a small fee for each transaction in exchange for the server space and distribution (like Apple does with the app store).

People are creating it anyways, so why not give them the tools to get it to the largest audience? Imagine if the next Into the Odd or Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque or Lamentations of the Flame Princess or Adventurer Conqueror King were simply modules for D&D Next? Now, those creators might not actually go that route, but there are certainly people out there that might take advantage.

 

[Mercule]

I just don't get the hardcore OGL love fetishism. I appreciate the OGL. I'm grateful that WotC did that with d20 and I made use of some OGL materials. I'd certainly view an OGL 5e as a perk. I just wouldn't lose a beat if they didn't do it.

I play D&D to play D&D. If I want to play some pseudo-D&D, then there's already a ton of them out there. As far as a pseudo-5e goes, the play test still seems solidly d20 derived, so someone could do a knock-off through the back door by saying it was based on the OGL, rather than 5e. It might just be harder to find modules (either the 1e definition or the Lego meaning) and monster books by third parties. For that reason, alone, I think it might be in WotC's best interest to make 5e OGL or a new d20-type license. But... that's a business call that won't meaningfully impact my likelihood of buying 5e material.

If WotC does decide to do something, though, I certainly hope it's more like the original d20/SRD than the GSL of 4e. The GSL really had the stink of a modernized version of the early/mid 1990s crusade against fans to stop posting home brew mechanics, etc. using the terms "hit points", "armor class", etc. on the grounds that these were copyrighted IP of TSR. That crusade was the final (and largest) factor in my decision to sell off my substantial collection of 1e and 2e books and move on to WoD, Fantasy Hero, and other games. I only returned to D&D with the change of ownership and announcement of 3e (OGL wasn't a factor).

 

[Obryn]

That's a very... odd requirement, to say the least. The license the game is under has literally no effect on the quality of the game, or whether the first books are worth buying. No matter what the license is, the base product will be exactly the same.

It's not one of my own major issues. However, while it says nothing to the quality of the game itself, it might say everything to the quality of supplements available for it. Which is a perfectly rational requirement. And honestly, I think it would do more than almost anything else WotC could do to make Next a "welcoming" edition.

I don't consider it an ethical issue; it's a business one. But I think a smart license would be a very good move. I don't think making it as open as the OGL is necessarily a good idea, but it's a less-bad idea than keeping the terms of the GSL or closing off the game entirely. Making it open enough so that third parties can operate in relative confidence within the boundaries of the license, without the poison pills in the GSL, would be pretty great.

-O

 

[Sanglorian]

Re: Comparisons with Paizo, I wonder if Hasbro/WotC and Paizo have different requirements as to their returns? As a rough analogy, the difference between having two or a dozen children to feed? My understanding is that Paizo uses different channels for its products (a subscription, direct to market strategy?) Those different channels have much less overhead. Also, Paizo is a much smaller and focused organization. Hasbro/WotC has the added layers and inefficiency of a large corporation. Also, Hasbro is publicly traded (symbol HAS), whereas Paizo doesn't seem to be (I don't find a symbol for them.)

Also: Wouldn't an open license have created problems for paced release model adopted for the 4E core books? I don't see folks waiting several years to get all of the power sources. An open model would allow third parties to release new power sources ahead of the core books. Similarly, wouldn't an open license open the gate to third party tools that would compete with the online database and tools?

Hey Tom,

You're right that Paizo and Wizards are very different animals. And I think Wizards' long-term prospects are probably better than Paizo's because of their differences. But I think Paizo is the best comparison we can make to Wizards, because it's close in scale to Wizards and they do a lot of the same things.

I actually think an open licence would have made the paced release model of the 4E core books more successful. Third parties could have produced 4E-versions of 3E races and classes which people could have used while waiting for the official versions to come out (Expeditious Retreat Press did this, in fact, with the Advanced Player's Guide, and it didn't seem to affect sales of the Player's Handbook II). Instead, I think some groups just continued playing 3E while they waited—and then never bothered to switch over.

As for third party tools competing with DDI stuff, I don't think this would be too big a problem. Wizards, with all its resources, still struggled to get the DDI up and running. Third parties would have found it even more difficult. In the 3E era, the third party tools I used were pretty clunky (for example, PCGen ran very slowly for me).

 

[shamsael]

I hope that 5e is going to be open, but for the benefits of others, not mine... because right now I have the feeling that I am most likely to stick to just a small bunch of books for 5e, compared to 3e, and that small bunch is probably going to be all WotC.

While I like the idea of an open system, other than S&S's Ravenloft for 3rd edition, I've never actually used a third party supplement.