Do you think the OGL was a good idea?

[Ahnehnois]

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.

4e's critics aren't a "problem" per se, but that aside, I don't buy this line of thought at all. Regardless of the licensing issues, the mission statement and many of the pieces of the game itself were simply never going to be accepted. The licensing did not create the divide.

I also feel alot of inovation in new games got quiashed by the d20 glut

Maybe at first, but the OGL is still here and plenty of people are publishing other systems now.

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.

There would have been retroclones without the OGL, history tells us. Maybe not games as overtly copied or prevalent, but PF isn't really fueling the 3.X community so much as it is being fueled by that community.

As Ryan Dancey said, what the OGL does is it makes sure that no one can kill D&D. WotC tried to kill at least the OGL version. Their mistake. That's where the divide comes from.

 

[Umbran]

but with no one egging them on they would not have been as vocal or as much of a problem.

What, is WotC supposed to be our parent, now? Little Jimmy and Tommy can't play together nice, so Mommy takes the toy away, leaving nothing to argue over?

The mere existence of another game is not "egging them on". And WotC should not need to set its business policies based on the assumption that its customers are self-destructively jerkish. WotC and Paizo don't have orbital mind control lasers, nor do they lace their publications with aggression-enhancing drugs. They don't *make* us do anything. Our basic lack of thoughtfulness and self-control are our own problems.

As an example....

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

So, the critics are those who, "choose not to just swallow whatever WotC wants to feed them"? Then, by implication, their opposition *do* just swallow WotC output without consideration...

...and flames commence.

Now, delericho here has been around quite a while. He cannot hide behind the, "I didn't know anyone would take that as insulting," because the dynamic has been made perfectly clear over time - that excuse would be the same as saying, "I'm stupid", and we know he's not. So, he either knew how people would take it (and he's being a malicious troll), or he simply didn't think too much about it.

So, yeah, critics are not the problem. But those who either maliciously or thoughtlessly insult others are a problem. WotC business choices can't save us from that.

 

[delericho]

So, the critics are those who, "choose not to just swallow whatever WotC wants to feed them"? Then, by implication, their opposition *do* just swallow WotC output without consideration...

Ah, you've excluded a middle position - that those who continue to buy have considered the offering, decided they like it, and so buy it. (I don't like fish, but I don't consider those who do to be stupid.)

Still...

Now, delericho here has been around quite a while. He cannot hide behind the, "I didn't know anyone would take that as insulting," because the dynamic has been made perfectly clear over time - that excuse would be the same as saying, "I'm stupid", and we know he's not. So, he either knew how people would take it (and he's being a malicious troll), or he simply didn't think too much about it.

It does sound like I owe someone an apology. The "simply didn't think too much about it" is correct, but if it could be interpreted that I was being either a jerk or a troll then, at the very least, I mis-spoke.

So, if I offended anyone by what I wrote, I apologise.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

Yup. That's the bottom line and a large part, I suspect, of why new naming conventions were tied so heavily to actions and the like for things going forward once the OGL was no longer going to be a part of the business plan. It's going to be interesting to see how integrated such things are in the final releases of 5E since, technically, if they go back to old conventions but don't use the OGL it won't be that difficult to make compatible products even if you can't call them that.

 

[Enkhidu]

...As Ryan Dancey said, what the OGL does is it makes sure that no one can kill D&D...

I think this is the important part. The OGL was fabulous for D&D's 3rd edition. It did indeed make sure that it could stay in print and supported (in the form of Pathfinder, though I doubt anyone could have predicted that particular variation).

But was it good for D&D as a whole (and more importantly WotC's ability to continue to have a D&D business)? I don't think so. Systems need to be able to change with the times to maintain relevance, and catch the next wave of players. The OGL - primarily, I think, because it was so mishandled by WotC after it was initially released - ended up calcifying the rule set, making it harder to introduce different foundational ideas.

I think WotC's biggest mistake in regard to the OGL was in releasing the code of the system without regard for how to guide - and more importantly monetize - the flow of development. Certainly WotC never envisioned the OGL allowing for wholly new d20 systems built on baseline mechanics but which no longer required a PHB to play. Simple tweaks before the release of the OGL text could have headed that one off pretty effectively.

So while I am very glad that the OGL is in place - it's great for me and like minded people - I can definitely see the POV that says that it was a bad idea for WotC.

 

[The Black Ranger]

Double post.

 

[The Black Ranger]

I'm not worried about WoTC's profits, whether past, present, or future. I stick with games I enjoy, not when WOTC decides I've had enough fun with that one system and directs me to another. I also don't have brand loyalty. Competition is perfect for a consumer and that is what I am.

 

[billd91]

But was it good for D&D as a whole (and more importantly WotC's ability to continue to have a D&D business)? I don't think so. Systems need to be able to change with the times to maintain relevance, and catch the next wave of players. The OGL - primarily, I think, because it was so mishandled by WotC after it was initially released - ended up calcifying the rule set, making it harder to introduce different foundational ideas.

I think the OGL could have been good for D&D if WotC had managed it correctly - by which I mean using its openness to generate ideas for improving it and bringing those improvements into the system. They put the rules out there for others to use and develop new ideas from and then... did nothing with it. They could have had a living ruleset but instead left it to wither on the vine.

 

[Enkhidu]

I think the OGL could have been good for D&D if WotC had managed it correctly - by which I mean using its openness to generate ideas for improving it and bringing those improvements into the system. They put the rules out there for others to use and develop new ideas from and then... did nothing with it. They could have had a living ruleset but instead left it to wither on the vine.

My sentiments exactly - while Dancey and company cribbed the license structure from GNU, they didn't crib the mechanisms by which they could continue to guide the process.

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Nellisir]

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!).

Availability and timing. With all due respect to Ryan Nock, Phil Reed, and others, Mike Mearls was the name in the book sitting on the shelf at my FLGS in 2001. Why does that matter now? Foundational works. I can count on one hand the number of times I've come across Phil Reed's name in the S.15 of a product he didn't produce. I come across Mike's name a lot more often than that (also Green Ronin, and, yes Morrus, EN World - specifically Tournaments, Fairs, and Taverns (I think that's it). Mike's early work seeded into a lot of other products because it was early and because it was printed. Phil's work tends not to do that - I'm not sure if it's because it's pdf (probably in part) or because it's shorter material (probably that too; at least what I'm familiar with).

Given 8+ years of additional work, have other people outproduced him? Well, yeah, it'd be weird if someone didn't.