Do you think the OGL was a good idea?

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know if it was just us older players who didn't like 4E. My son's group who are a mixed group of 20 and early 30 year olds didn't like it either. I think it is more a game style issue than an age issue.

But I will admit that for me I am tired of changing DnD editions when I was happy with what came before. I no longer need something just because it is shiny and new.

back in the last days of 3.5 our group ran the spectrum from teenager to in there fifties...

During our last 4e game we run from 20's to 40's... (remember that was a 6 year span so that teen is the 20 something now)

I didn't find our split between pathfinder and 4e through any line (Race Age Sex and Play style) they all mixed.

2 players go back and forth between both but for the most part our group splintered down the middle. half on one shore and half on the other...

We have story gamers in both camps
We have hack and slash munchkins in both camps
We have casual players that will never fully learn the rules in both camps
We have DMs in both camps
We have people who have never DMed in both camps
We have 1 family of 4 brother 3 play pathfinder and 2 play 4e (yes one plays both)


If I had to put a name to what type of person played either I could not...

 

[Elf Witch]

back in the last days of 3.5 our group ran the spectrum from teenager to in there fifties...

During our last 4e game we run from 20's to 40's... (remember that was a 6 year span so that teen is the 20 something now)

I didn't find our split between pathfinder and 4e through any line (Race Age Sex and Play style) they all mixed.

2 players go back and forth between both but for the most part our group splintered down the middle. half on one shore and half on the other...

We have story gamers in both camps
We have hack and slash munchkins in both camps
We have casual players that will never fully learn the rules in both camps
We have DMs in both camps
We have people who have never DMed in both camps
We have 1 family of 4 brother 3 play pathfinder and 2 play 4e (yes one plays both)


If I had to put a name to what type of person played either I could not...

That has been my experience too. I know a group of young uns as I call them ,they are all around 30, who play AD&D second edition.

 

[Mark CMG]

Like everything else in this thread, it doesn't need any speculation.

Excellent first post. Welcome to EN World!

 

[kettite]

You should really dig up Ryan Dancey's comments on it, particularly his most recent (from...what? Two weeks ago? Might be linked from the front page.) He lays out the entire chain of logic and the arguments for it, and his perspective now. You're not going to get a more complete explanation, considering he was the one writing those exact emails to legal fourteen years ago. He also puts it into the context of the industry at the time, which is key. In many people's mind, it boiled down to go big (with the OGL), or close up D&D and go home. The whole tabletop roleplaying industry was tanking, and WotC was the only one with the means ($$$) and influence (via D&D) to take on the job of saving it.

It's actually quite simple. Ryan Dancey (the author and instigator of the OGL) has explained it tons of times.

1. We just bought TSR, which collapsed due to producing a mass crapload of adventures and settings and splatbooks which were individually not profitable enough.
2. However, a well-supported game with craploads of adventures and settings and sourcebooks is more likely to be a successful game.
3. How do we ensure our game is well supported without having to make all those things ourselves? Ahah! We let everyone else do it for us; people who will be OK with the sales figures on individual items because they have much lower overheads than us and can thus more easily profit from them.

With the added effect that with the near death of D&D prior to TSR's acquisition, Dancey wanted to ensure D&D could never die. He succeeded.

With all due respect, this does not answer my question and in fact further highlights the bizarre circumstances of it all. Ryan Dancey and other WotC executives have made many public statements over the last decade plus concerning the narrative of their decisions. Considering that Hasbro purchased WotC in '99, and the OGL was published in '00, I'm still befuddled as to how Adkinson, Dancey and others convinced the attorneys at Hasbro (or outside counsel) that the OGL, which has actively diluted the value of D&D for the owner (Hasbro) over time (through creation of active competition in the marketplace which can publish material using prior versions of the rules with an existing fan-base) was a good and necessary thing.

I am operating under the assumption that at some point some member of Hasbro legal, compliance, risk management or audit, caught wind of the inclusion of the OGL (which, another assumption by me, was written by attorneys) and said "No way!" and laid out their reasons.

My theory is that the real value of WoTC to Hasbro was in the card game and license market, and whatever occurred in the tabletop market did not generate enough concern to over-rule the desires of WotC management to include the OGL. Somewhere some poor associate drafted a memorandum describing why the OGL was anathema to the future earning potential of the brand, but legal must have been trumped by business concerns. At least, such is my theory.

 

[delericho]

With all due respect, this does not answer my question and in fact further highlights the bizarre circumstances of it all. Ryan Dancey and other WotC executives have made many public statements over the last decade plus concerning the narrative of their decisions. Considering that Hasbro purchased WotC in '99, and the OGL was published in '00, I'm still befuddled as to how Adkinson, Dancey and others convinced the attorneys at Hasbro (or outside counsel) that the OGL, which has actively diluted the value of D&D for the owner (Hasbro) over time (through creation of active competition in the marketplace which can publish material using prior versions of the rules with an existing fan-base) was a good and necessary thing.

At a guess, either the OGL was far enough through the process it couldn't easily be stopped, or it was in the contract that the OGL go ahead anyway, or (probably most likely) it just slipped under the radar. Because...

My theory is that the real value of WoTC to Hasbro was in the card game and license market

This is absolutely correct. Magic has always been a much bigger property than D&D (at least since WotC got involved), and most of the value of D&D lies in the name "Dungeons & Dragons". The actual game itself is probably small enough to be beneath notice.

 

[Mark CMG]

Magic has always been a much bigger property than D&D (at least since WotC got involved)

And the Pokemon TCG at the time.

 

[Umbran]

I'm still befuddled as to how Adkinson, Dancey and others convinced the attorneys at Hasbro (or outside counsel) that the OGL, which has actively diluted the value of D&D for the owner (Hasbro) over time (through creation of active competition in the marketplace which can publish material using prior versions of the rules with an existing fan-base) was a good and necessary thing.

High charisma, max ranks in Diplomacy and Bluff.

As you yourself point out, Hasbro didn't buy WotC for D&D. They bought it for Magic: the Gathering. They probably just didn't care, or saw that they didn't really have all that much to lose. D&D was an incidental acquisition, so let them experiment with it - easy come, easy go.

 

[Kinak]

I am operating under the assumption that at some point some member of Hasbro legal, compliance, risk management or audit, caught wind of the inclusion of the OGL (which, another assumption by me, was written by attorneys) and said "No way!" and laid out their reasons.

It was written by at least one lawyer, by the name of Brian Lewis. He's co-owner of GenCon now, among other things.

As far as dates, the more relevant one is probably that Peter Adkison left as WotC CEO at the beginning of 2001. As noted up-thread, he was a vocal proponent of the OGL as a means of preserving D&D.

Rick Marshall's posts here are also quite interesting.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[kettite]

It was written by at least one lawyer, by the name of Brian Lewis. He's co-owner of GenCon now, among other things.

As far as dates, the more relevant one is probably that Peter Adkison left as WotC CEO at the beginning of 2001. As noted up-thread, he was a vocal proponent of the OGL as a means of preserving D&D.

Rick Marshall's posts here are also quite interesting.

Cheers!
Kinak

Great reading at that link (I miss Grognardia), thanks for providing.

 

[jsaving]

I'm still befuddled as to how Adkinson, Dancey and others convinced the attorneys at Hasbro (or outside counsel) that the OGL, which has actively diluted the value of D&D for the owner (Hasbro) over time (through creation of active competition in the marketplace which can publish material using prior versions of the rules with an existing fan-base) was a good and necessary thing.

If your premise were right, it would be a mystery indeed. But I'm not so sure it's right.

By fostering the development of a vibrant third-party marketplace for adventures and other tertiary products, WotC reaped increased sales of its core rulebooks, driving revenue above where it would have been without an OGL. The reason is that a vastly expanded universe of low-margin adventure products create demand for the core books, which provide the bulk of WotC's D&D-related profits. Further driving 3e sales was the protection against forced obsolescence that 3e rulebook purchasers enjoyed under the OGL, because anybody who was on the fence about purchasing the core books knew and understood that their edition would continue to receive third-party support in the event a substandard new edition was eventually foisted upon them.

You speak of these things as inexplicable mistakes when in fact they were integral to D&D's remarkable success in the early to mid 2000s. And while you are right that the OGL contributed to the fracturing of the gaming community today, the OGL did not itself create the fracture -- that was done through the creation of an edition most gamers didn't prefer to what had come before, and exacerbated by discouraging a a third-party adventure market that would have driven up demand for the 4e core books in the same way it did for 3e's core books. All the OGL did was fulfill its design imperative of ensuring gamers would be protected in precisely this circumstance, and vindicated the many gamers who bought 3e's core books precisely because of this guarantee. Is it regrettable that so many people have felt the need to "redeem" the guarantee? Yes, but blaming the OGL for this points fingers in the wrong direction and obscures the good a robust OGL could do for 5e...