4E and the OGL

[thecasualoblivion]

4E was a major departure from 3E and previous editions in general. Personally, I wonder how much this departure had to do with the OGL. We've heard murmurs that WotC wasn't really happy with the OGL. It is certainly reasonable to assert that one of the reasons 4E was made as different as it is was to move it beyond the reach of the OGL, and to separate mainstream D&D from the OGL. What would people's opinions be on this hypothetical assertion?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that's a bit tinfoil hat for me.

I don't think WotC really noticed the OGL all that much. They're such a big shark in this little pond that if there were any other fish eating bits of its prey, those bits were far too small for WotC to bother going after anyway.

I think it has more to do with branding and brand control -- what is "D&D!", what D&D means, what D&D looks like. They didn't want the confusion.

Personally, I think that's a Super Mega Ultra LAME reason to ignore one of the best things to happen to gaming since the d20, even if I can understand the reason. But I have been known to be something of an idealist, and I'm not sure WotC has that luxury. Which kind of makes me sad that WotC is part of a corporate behemoth now and not smaller, more agile, and more prone to do things daring and idealistic than to play it safe and do it by the numbers.

 

[Delta]

4E was a major departure from 3E and previous editions in general. Personally, I wonder how much this departure had to do with the OGL. We've heard murmurs that WotC wasn't really happy with the OGL. It is certainly reasonable to assert that one of the reasons 4E was made as different as it is was to move it beyond the reach of the OGL, and to separate mainstream D&D from the OGL. What would people's opinions be on this hypothetical assertion?

That's definitely my top theory, that the OGL issue had a strong influence on the design. I've said that before. I sort of agree with KM's statement of the business case: I think WOTC's late-era reaction to the OGL was out of proportion to the actual business effect of it.

In particular, the monsters all being named "adjective-noun" specifically looks like a trademark-ability move.

 

[delericho]

In particular, the monsters all being named "adjective-noun" specifically looks like a trademark-ability move.

Certainly that and the custom little icons for different types of attacks in stat-blocks make using the OGL for 4e products less than ideal.

However, I don't think the game was designed specifically to break away from the OGL, or else they would have gone further than they did. I genuinely believe the 4e design team set out to design the best game that they could, and a consequence of that was the vast departure from the 3e ruleset.

(The names and icons are a different matter, which may well have been inserted for OGL-breaking reasons. However, those are a fairly minor part of the whole, IMO.)

 

[wedgeski]

I think there is a certain amount of "reassertion of ownership" in the approach taken to 4E, but no, in general, I doubt whether the design team were mandated to make certain decisions based on some perceived threat from the OGL.

 

[Betote]

If WotC were OK with the OGL and hadn't any issues with it, they wouldn't have tried to force the GSL upon 3pp.

Fortunately, there are quite a few who have realized that they can still use the OGL and create 4th ed-compatible products.

 

[delericho]

Fortunately, there are quite a few who have realized that they can still use the OGL and create 4th ed-compatible products.

Well, it's possible, but it's very far from ideal. The OGL Goodman Games modules, for example, are forced to use different icons in their monster stat-blocks, which makes using them that bit more difficult. For them, it will definately be a positive step to start using the GSL for their future modules.

 

[Betote]

Well, it's possible, but it's very far from ideal. The OGL Goodman Games modules, for example, are forced to use different icons in their monster stat-blocks, which makes using them that bit more difficult. For them, it will definately be a positive step to start using the GSL for their future modules.

I didn't realize they were different until you said it and I rechecked them, so I wouldn't say that "difference" is an issue

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's definitely my top theory, that the OGL issue had a strong influence on the design. I've said that before. I sort of agree with KM's statement of the business case: I think WOTC's late-era reaction to the OGL was out of proportion to the actual business effect of it.

In particular, the monsters all being named "adjective-noun" specifically looks like a trademark-ability move.

This.

 

[Raven Crowking]

However, I don't think the game was designed specifically to break away from the OGL, or else they would have gone further than they did.

If you are saying that the game was largely designed first, and then when through a phase of de-OGLing, where names were changed (no normal crocodile for you!), specific icons/graphics were added so that they could be proprietary, and perhaps powers/wording were tweaked to avoid simple OGL conversion (successfully or not), I would agree with you.


RC