Do you think the OGL was a good idea?

[Wicht]

I'd point out that that's not actually true. After all, En World's 4e adventure paths are GSL licensed, which can be pulled.

Honestly, I'd say that the OGL forest has shrunk to a very small core. At least d20 OGL anyway. Other systems are going with some sort of open license, but, not d20. Name 3 new D20 games that aren't D&D related that have come out in the past two years. For a while there, EVERYTHING was d20 OGL. Now? I looked at the Hot Roleplaying Games list and only 2 of the top 10 games are new D20 - 13th Age and Numenara and those are pretty closely tied to D&D. Everything else is much older or not d20 at all. (Those two games are d20 aren't they?)

The days of OGL games being the forest are somewhat behind us. Fate, Savage Worlds, and others are spreading out now that the shadow of D20 seems to have past.

I am not convinced that the words you are using mean what you think they mean.

Fate is an OGL game. Savage Worlds is not an OGL game. But the number of non-d20 games that are Open has actually increased. The d20 license should not be confused with the OGL or other open licenses. They are not the same thing.

Also as to your first paragraph's point, I do believe I have seen Morrus recently say that the yanking of the 4e GSL would not be a welcome development. And if it did happen, I would have to think that more publishers would think twice before signing onto another such agreement.

 

[Umbran]

The days of OGL games being the forest are somewhat behind us. Fate, Savage Worlds, and others are spreading out now that the shadow of D20 seems to have past.

Yeah, given that both FATE and Savage Worlds *are* released under the OGL, your argument seems to have some flaws.

Edit: Oops! I was wrong here - SW is not OGL.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, don't confuse the d20 STL with the OGL. They are two different things.

 

[Umbran]

Now, there may be an argument that the days of d20 being the basis for interesting game development, he may have a solid point. But that has nothing to do with the OGL.

 

[Wicht]

Yeah, given that both FATE and Savage Worlds *are* released under the OGL, your argument seems to have some flaws.

Is Savage Worlds now OGL? They didn't use to be. I know they have a license but was not aware the system was itself open.

 

[Umbran]

Is Savage Worlds now OGL? They didn't use to be. I know they have a license but was not aware the system was itself open.

Nope, I stand corrected. SW is *not* OGL. They license for publication on a case-by-case basis. http://www.peginc.com/licensing/

 

[delericho]

Is Savage Worlds now OGL?

Doesn't appear to be. There is both a fan license and a (free) publishers' license, but neither of them is the OGL.

 

[jsaving]

The OGL wasn't just a "good" idea -- it was a truly innovative idea whose benefits continue to be felt today. It produced a thriving third-party adventure market that in turn positively impacted sales of the core books, helping both WotC and third-party producers make more money than they otherwise would have done. Also, as Ryan Dancey explained in the early days of 3e, the OGL helped gamers feel more secure about investing in 3e products because they knew there would be continued third-party support for it even if WotC tried to make them move to a new edition they viewed as unsatisfactory.

I think there are two key mistakes people make when forming a negative assessment of the OGL. One is that it enabled third-party developers to grow too strong, culminating in one particular third-party rivaling WotC itself. The other is that it fractured the D&D community by enabling 3e grognards to cling to their ruleset long after its expiration date. What these analyses miss is that these are both features rather than bugs, so to speak. The OGL was always intended to give gamers the ultimate fail-safe in the event that a new edition didn't suit their needs, and was always intended to create a thriving third-party marketplace to drive the network effects that would keep WotC itself strong.

I like 4e and use it for one of my campaigns, but think its "closed" business model is an under-appreciated explanation for why it hasn't garnered greater acceptance across the gaming community. My hope is that 5e will incorporate 4e's best ideas, bring back much of what worked from editions past, and introduce a new OGL to help recreate the vibrant D&D environment that most of us still remember and many of us wish would return. I don't know if this would "unite" everybody behind a single edition -- it may be too late for that -- but it would be a great step in the right direction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are assuming is that if it was not for Pathfinder the people who didn't like 4E would have just sucked it up and switched. I think you are wrong they either would have kept playing 3E or switched to another system.

I see this argument a lot that Pazio split the fanbase but I think the fact that many players didn't like 4E was more the problem.

Also as others have said WOTC decsions forced pazio into doing Pathfinder to stay in business.

Agreed. The OGL isn't the problem, the problem was a lot of the older people not liking 4E. The OGL was the weakest spot and thus where the failure showed up (in creating Pathfinder) but that doesn't mean the failure wouldn't have shown up elsewhere anyway.

 

[Nellisir]

When the Dragon license ended, Paizo had to do something - it was that or fold the company. And with the d20 license also ending, any option of continuing to support D&D was also a no-no. So, although Pathfinder wouldn't exist in it's current form, it's likely they'd have produced something.

I feel like people forget that Pathfinder wasn't a response to 3.5 ending, or 4e, or WotC deciding not to use the OGL. Pathfinder was a response to a) WotC's extremely delayed schedule, so Paizo had to do SOMETHING to keep money coming in, and b) the GSL, which many companies took one look at and threw away.

If WotC had gone with the OGL for 4e, I'd place money that we'd be playing some variety of 4e right now. Paizo would have put their spin on it, Green Ronin would have done their variant (briefly), Mongoose would have played with it...the issues that people have and had with 4e would have found solutions. As is, WotC forced a "my way or the highway" choice on its audience and reaped the consequences.

And if you're arguing that companies would or will adopt a very limited OGL, just look at the GSL. The GSL is a handicapped (nearly decapitated) OGL/d20 STL hybrid. Compare the number of companies that use the OGL vs the GSL. It's hard to think of a metric by which the GSL could be considered a success.

I think there are ways to limit a new version of the OGL without decapitating it, but the audience that cares has gotten a lot smarter about the OGL since 2008, when we saw the alternative, so it may all be moot now. WotC has probably lost the chance to get people to adopt a more limited OGL over the OGL itself.