Do you think the OGL was a good idea?

[DaveMage]

Eh, you're both right.

From 2001-2005, his name was everywhere. But since 2005, of course....not so much.

 

[Mark CMG]

Eh, you're both right.

From 2001-2005, his name was everywhere. But since 2005, of course....not so much.

Sounds reasonable. And given the context of the side discussion you and I were having, the argument isn't actually worth having.

 

[Morrus]

Eh, you're both right.

From 2001-2005, his name was everywhere. But since 2005, of course....not so much.

Yeah, he wrote OGC for 3 years. Everyone else wrote OGC for 14 years. I mean, it's 2014. Everybody else didn't stop work 10 years ago when Mearls got a full time job. Why anybody would try to 'prove' he's in the top handful of OGC authors is beyond me. He isn't, clearly. It's not even a conversation.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yeah, he wrote OGC for 3 years. Everyone else wrote OGC for 14 years. I mean, it's 2014. Everybody else didn't stop work 10 years ago when Mearls got a full time job. Why anybody would try to 'prove' he's in the top handful of OGC authors is beyond me. He isn't, clearly. It's not even a conversation.

Perhaps you are missing the point in that the response was in regard to WotC dumping the OGL because no one in house at the time of 4E was an OGL supporter/user? It's a beyond me why it's an argument you wish to pursue but let's make it interesting. If it is going to be a bone of contention for you I'm happy to follow any links at RPG Geek (or elsewhere) listing bibliographies showing the hundreds of OGL projects of the many authors you state are that prolific. In fact, it might be a good source for this thread to have included, given the topic of discussion. That might even be a great project for EN World to have such a database since guys like Ryan Nock aren't getting their due credit in your eyes (and I don't disagree!).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Bad for whom in the long run?

Short answer Everyone

Long answer: it is my honest opion that with a set date for OGL and SRD and everything to end (say march 2009) that there would still be people who disliked 4e and who would have stayed with 3e, but with no one egging them on they would not have been as vocal or as much of a problem. I dont think 4e would have been more or less of a sucesss but without edition wars turning as hog, and without people claiming to know the "true spiritual successor" the community would not be so splinterrd

I also feel alot of inovation in new games got quiashed by the d20 glut, why make a new star gate set of rules when you can take d20, and most of what i thought of the good systems did grow out if that and go there own way.

I also do not belive that people so venemus against a group of our co roleplayers (Wotc gets some pretty big hate) would have lasted as long without someone basicly taking everything they built and running with it just witha lowe roverhead.

 

[mattcolville]

I thing the absence of robust online support from WotC created a perceived need in the marketplace for material.

WotC already produced more product than anyone could use in a lifetime of play. But it sat on the shelves next to even *more* stuff. I don't think there was any relation between the demand for 3E material, and the supply.

If WotC's material was available online, indexed, integrated into tools like a character builder and compendium like 4E, third party stuff would have bombed. I think the exceptions would be campaigns and adventures, which is what the OGL was originally for anyway.

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't see how. The retroclones are of stuff that wasn't covered by the OGL in the first place, so it doesn't apply. They instead depend on the fact that copyright covers specific expressions, but not underlying logic of a system.

The material released in the SRD under the OGL didn't explicitly cover older editions of D&D, but the authors of most of the retro clones made extensive use of terms in the SRD. Look at BFRPG, LL, OSRIC, etc. They all use the OGL in order to access the SRD.

 

[gamerprinter]

As a freelancer and a small time publisher, I lack the skills of true game designers so I'd never qualify for working for any of the big game publishers, though I still have something to contribute. Had there not been an OGL, I don't think I'd ever have been able to participate as I have. As a cartographer, I mostly get commissions from 3PP companies, without an OGL there wouldn't be any 3PP companies. I have gotten a Paizo Publishing map commission once, and though they're a big one, Paizo was still a 3PP, until the creation of Pathfinder. So the OGL has been critical for all opportunities I've ever had to create artistic cartography for publishers in the industry.

Through 3PP connections, I've managed to get a personal homebrew setting developed with several authors, game designers, editors and 3PP owner/publisher, Steven Russell of Rite Publishing, as an imprint under his company. Since Steve is 3PP, his existence depended on the OGL, and wouldn't be available to me, if such didn't exist. I'd have never gotten my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) off the ground had there not been an OGL.

So the OGL's existence, is everything to me. Without it, I'd only ever be a player and gamemaster, and not a low level participant in the RPG industry as I am today.

 

[delericho]

Short answer Everyone

Long answer: it is my honest opion that with a set date for OGL and SRD and everything to end (say march 2009) that there would still be people who disliked 4e and who would have stayed with 3e, but with no one egging them on they would not have been as vocal or as much of a problem.

People who choose not to just swallow whatever WotC want to feed them, and instead buy a competing product, are not a 'problem'.

Additionally, for all that they cause tension on messageboards, Edition Wars are good for sales - certainly Paizo, and almost certainly WotC as well, sold many more units than they would have with the same product but no Edition War to keep it in the spotlight.

 

[Wicht]

Short answer Everyone

Long answer: it is my honest opion that with a set date for OGL and SRD and everything to end (say march 2009) that there would still be people who disliked 4e and who would have stayed with 3e, but with no one egging them on they would not have been as vocal or as much of a problem. I dont think 4e would have been more or less of a sucesss but without edition wars turning as hog, and without people claiming to know the "true spiritual successor" the community would not be so splinterrd

Not going to name names, but I have only seen one person doing a lot of edition-warring and company bashing on a consistent basis in the last few days.

And, while you are entitled to your opinion that everyone is absolutely worse off for the OGL having existed, I can only say that the OGL has been a very positive thing for both my gaming experiences and for my life. The Pathfinder Adventure paths have helped create some very good memories between me and my children. We still talk about Rise of the Runelords years after having completed it. Moreover, without the OGL, there would have been no Kobold Quarterly and I would not have got my first break into RPG writing (The Care and Feeding of Gelatinous Cubes) and Rite Publishing would likely not have been formed and I would not have had the chance to write Coliseum Morpheoun, nor work on the other projects after that I have worked on including the aforementioned Kaidan. So all in all, my world is a richer place for the OGL having existed.