Why Open Gaming Is Important

[Oofta]

While I empathize with people who feel threatened, I simply don't really use much 3PP stuff other than the occasional PDF from DmsGuild which is under a different contract so will be unaffected. So it really doesn't matter to me.

For that matter, most people I've gamed with over the course of multiple editions don't really use 3PP stuff. I'd likely enjoy other games and genres, but my wife has no interest in learning new games or systems. In addition the game system enables play, it doesn't define my enjoyment of playing an RPG. If the OGL had never been created there are a couple of books gathering dust on my bookshelf, but otherwise it wouldn't impact me in the least.

I think most people who play D&D are in the same boat, I don't think the people on this forum are representative. I'm not saying the OGL 1.0 was good or bad, I think there likely could have been more innovation in games if it had not been created. I also think PF, by way of challenging D&D's dominance was actually good for D&D - at least it was for me. But most people? I suspect most people won't know or care if there is never another 3PP addition to D&D ever again.

So it's not that I don't care, but if I were blissfully unaware of the issues it would have never impacted my gaming one way or another.

 

[Clint_L]

I agree that PF was good for D&D...because it was just more D&D. Its success has helped solidify D&D as the way to play an RPG. It was the ultimate proof of concept for the OGL as a way of colonizing the RPG space with ever more D&D.

I have bought a few things that only happened because of the OGL (I bought the Tal'Dorei setting a few months back, for example), but my non-D&D RPG dollars tend to go to products that are as far from D&D as I can get. So I wasn't a huge fan of the OGL to begin with - I didn't dislike it, and I'm glad that folks were able to make money off it - I'd rather see a small Kickstarter get money than Hasbro. And ultimately, I do think D&D's absolute dominance in recent years is a net gain for humanity, because I think gaming in general and RPGs in particular are good and everyone should do them. But the homogenization arguably caused by the OGL hasn't been my favourite thing.

So I look at what is happening now, and it seems to me that Hasbro is basically just acting like corporations act. I don't think they are being particularly villainous any more than all corporations are villainous, from a lot of perspectives. And I hope that as a result of their actions, instead of suckling at the OGL teat, content creators are able to make their own thing and be independently successful.

But then I recognize that this is aspirational thinking, probably pollyanna-ish, and what is really likely to happen is that folks will lose some or all of their income.

 

[Umbran]

But most people? I suspect most people won't know or care if there is never another 3PP addition to D&D ever again.

Whether you are aware of something doesn't determine if that thing has impact upon you. Whether or not you use a thing personally, doesn't determine if it is good for your situation that it exists.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I think open-gaming is important because it opens the door and democratizes access to creation to other type of individuals, with different ideas. Individuals that probably wouldn't have their place in businesses that must make money to keep doing. These independent developers are an important part of an healthy ecosystem and they have an offer that's very different.

A lot of small products would not be viable in a business-oriented (we have employees and must pay them) world. But the fact that licenses, frameworks, tools and distribution methods allow these products to exist if very valuable. The same way that big video game development companies will rarely do risky projects to please shareholders or keep up with inflating salaries; but that independent developers will come up with the most crazy, fun and exciting ideas. They're the avant-garde and the engine of innovation.

It opens a whole other slice of a creative industry.

 

[Cadence]

I liked it for the dream that I might some day actually put together a heart-breaker using parts of the things I've seen and be able to share it without worry. And if it was popular maybe even get others to download a copy and build on it. Maybe half of the game books I've bought over the past decade and a half were for feeding that dream.

I like it for seeing others follow their dreams (and actually get them in to print!).

Could do the same with making one's own system entirely from scratch, but that seems like a ton more work on the less fun parts... and there is something nice about being tied into the whole.

 

[Oofta]

Whether you are aware of something doesn't determine if that thing has impact upon you. Whether or not you use a thing personally, doesn't determine if it is good for your situation that it exists.

If the OGL had never been released no one has any idea what impact it would have had on TTRPGs. You can speculate how things would have been different, but we simply don't know. Good? Bad? No clue.

All I'm pointing out is that people on this forum are not, in my experience, typical D&D players. Most people would not know Kobold press's Tome of Beasts from the Monster Manual. Obviously it will have negative impact on many people if it's implemented, I'm just not sure how widespread that impact will be. In a year we can do a post-mortem on impact, speculation on the impact for the general D&D audience is premature.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Seems a little odd to me to frame the idea (and celebration) of open gaming only in the context of D&D. Open gaming in general seems irrefutably awesome. But the fact that there are lots of open SRDs and such out there for a ton of interesting games, and here we are, as usual, talking about open gaming as "making D&D?" That's a bummer.

 

[payn]

If the OGL had never been released no one has any idea what impact it would have had on TTRPGs. You can speculate how things would have been different, but we simply don't know. Good? Bad? No clue.

All I'm pointing out is that people on this forum are not, in my experience, typical D&D players. Most people would not know Kobold press's Tome of Beasts from the Monster Manual. Obviously it will have negative impact on many people if it's implemented, I'm just not sure how widespread that impact will be. In a year we can do a post-mortem on impact, speculation on the impact for the general D&D audience is premature.

So, because they creators are not widely popular it doesn't matter what happens to them? Nice.

 

[Oofta]

So, because they creators are not widely popular it doesn't matter what happens to them? Nice.

That is not at all what I said. I was only talking about the consumer side of things, not the producer side. I empathize with the producers as I stated upthread.

Open gaming matters to the people that produce open game content. Most people who play the game don't really care who produces their game as long as they have a game they can enjoy. Don't twist my words into something I did not say.

 

[payn]

That is not at all what I said. I was only talking about the consumer side of things, not the producer side. I empathize with the producers as I stated upthread.

Open gaming matters to the people that produce open game content. Most people who play the game don't really care who produces their game as long as they have a game they can enjoy. Don't twist my words into something I did not say.

How exactly is that not one in the same?