Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved

[Morrus]

They know their influence is shrinking while Paizo's is growing. If they want to change it, a quality license and using the OGL are a serious part of that solution.

I'd say that the primary thing they could do to regain their market share is to produce and sell a roleplaying game; something they're not currently doing. Anything else is tangential to that.

 

[dmccoy1693]

That said, the Savage Worlds method of approved licensees (requiring no cost, but a quality assessment) might prove valuable as well. It gives a layer of quality control, and allows licensees to have a D&D Official Licensee logo on their work. Note that this was the method behind the d20 logo during 3rd edition, but that might have been granted too easily.

I disagree with an approvals process. I like Savage Worlds. but ultimately, I don't produce for SW because of the approvals process. I don't want someone having any kind of say over what I produce (outside of reasonable guidelines like I mentioned above). Sure SW doesn't have any kind of approvals beyond the first check. However, the more barriers you put in the way, the less support there will be. The less designers will come their way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The less designers will come their way.

They get all kinds of "high profile" designers via just hiring them freelance for a particular product. The difference being... Wizards actually owns and makes money off the product the designer produces, unlike the OGL where it's whatever company that produces the product.

If having "high profile" designers and developers actually mattered to them... they would have eliminated the apparent contract legalese they have that states that anything a full-time employee creates on their off time is automatically owned by Wizards, even if its not D&D related. THAT'S why they don't have so-called "high-profile" people working for them full-time. It's why Monte left, it's why Stan! left, and why Bruce Cordell eventually left. They couldn't work on non D&D things while working on D&D because of the contract stipulations (which I don't know if we know are Wizards-mandated or Hasbro mandated.)

So instead, Wizards hires them on a freelance basis and everyone is happy.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I disagree with an approvals process. I like Savage Worlds. but ultimately, I don't produce for SW because of the approvals process. I don't want someone having any kind of say over what I produce (outside of reasonable guidelines like I mentioned above). Sure SW doesn't have any kind of approvals beyond the first check. However, the more barriers you put in the way, the less support there will be. The less designers will come their way.

That's both a pro and a con of an approvals process. d20 glut was a real problem, and its something that Savage Worlds has avoided for the most part.

That said, I was actually thinking of a combination, where the rules are OGL, but an approval process meant you could use the "official licensee" logo and actually have D&D on your product.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Hmmh, I'm missing the part where you explain the possible advantage to Hasbro/WotC...

 

[Wicht]

They get all kinds of "high profile" designers via just hiring them freelance for a particular product. The difference being... Wizards actually owns and makes money off the product the designer produces, unlike the OGL where it's whatever company that produces the product.

If having "high profile" designers and developers actually mattered to them... they would have eliminated the apparent contract legalese they have that states that anything a full-time employee creates on their off time is automatically owned by Wizards, even if its not D&D related. THAT'S why they don't have so-called "high-profile" people working for them full-time. It's why Monte left, it's why Stan! left, and why Bruce Cordell eventually left. They couldn't work on non D&D things while working on D&D because of the contract stipulations (which I don't know if we know are Wizards-mandated or Hasbro mandated.)

So instead, Wizards hires them on a freelance basis and everyone is happy.

i suspect some people could be happier with other arrangements. And your post just reinforces that whole "competitor" mentality which I mentioned above and which seems to be prevalent in certain circles.

Consider the alternative mindset, such as that of Paizo, where they allow their chief designer to open his own little company on the side (making Pathfinder compatible PDFs no less) while still maintaining him on staff. I would guess Bulmahn is happier with that arrangement than he would be working entirely freelance. Freelance is nice if you have another day job but it takes a special sort of drive and opportunity to make it work as your primary employment.

 

[Wicht]

Hmmh, I'm missing the part where you explain the possible advantage to Hasbro/WotC...

They increase their sales.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would guess Bulmahn is happier with that arrangement than he would be working entirely freelance.

And thus, WotC only hired full-time people who are happy only working on D&D. The need for "high-profile" anybody to actually be on staff is lessened. Especially when they can hire many more "high profile" people via freelance jobs.

Not to mention the fact that just working on D&D for Wizards of the Coast is what turn most of them into a "high-profile" designer or developer in the first place. Wizards MAKES "high profile" designers and developers. They don't need to bring them back on staff.

 

[the Jester]

They increase their sales.

I've seen this asserted, but I'm not convinced that there is any evidence behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-OGL, but I have a hard time seeing where it's good for WotC. Good for the hobby itself? Good for D&D? Good for the community? Absolutely! Good for the parent company's bottom line? Not so sure... and that's the case that needs to be made.

 

[Wicht]

I've seen this asserted, but I'm not convinced that there is any evidence behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-OGL, but I have a hard time seeing where it's good for WotC. Good for the hobby itself? Good for D&D? Good for the community? Absolutely! Good for the parent company's bottom line? Not so sure... and that's the case that needs to be made.

The evidence is what it is: Pathfinder outsells Dungeons and Dragons and one must take into account the OGL as a possible factor in this.

My reasoning, in a nutshell would be thus. The OGL gives the game a greater life span by allowing players to experiment with the system; greater appeal by allowing niche markets which, while small, add up; greater community goodwill; and greater advertisement through an increased presence in the gaming world: all of which translates into possible sales, some of which might not have been possible without the OGL.