4E and the OGL

[Delta]

What you call taking a moral stance, I call advertising.

You're confused. I haven't called anything moral one way or the other in this thread. It's the OGL itself (and its author/ owner).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You're confused. I haven't called anything moral one way or the other in this thread. It's the OGL itself (and its author/ owner).

You've called it moral by posting quotes from other sources that make that assertion. Stop playing games.

Or would you like to state on the record in plain english that you don't believe that the OGL is a moral issue?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd caution going too far with this; D&D has PLENTY of its own personal IP that it needed to watch.
...
To start, WotC wants to protect its novel IP: Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and the stuff included in it. That includes how D&D defines it dark elves, draconians, kender, etc. It has good reason to want to; things based on these IP sell money. (well, with the exception of the DL movie). Even lesser known settings like Ravenloft generate revenue (witness Arhaus's decent success with the RL IP and WotC Expedition to Castle RL).

There is, indeed, a limit. But 3e watched Forgotten Realms and Eberron and Greyhawk and all the profitable IP (from things like novel lines) very well. Each setting was fine, even with the OGL. d20 settings like the Diamond Throne or Oathbound or licensed settings like Mongoose's Conan or the WoW RPG were fine. WotC didn't need to retreat from the OGL for this -- it didn't threaten the novels or worlds.

Also, WotC wants some control over how it defines its world. This is why the GSL had a "no definitions" clause. They saw countless books that changed various elements of its own IP to suit different (and competing) tastes. Drow and Demons were classic examples. I recall a poll long ago more people owned Tome of Horrors than they did Monster Manual 3. While the choice of how things like that are good for consumers, it creates a glut of material on things WotC would like to exploit: Drow of the Underdark (3.5) sold relatively poorly because by that point the market for dark elf material was pretty saturated with 3PP.

This paragraph is kind of bundled with a few different issues, so let's see if I can tease them out.

#1: "Control over Defining its World." As above, the OGL doesn't threaten individual worlds. Plenty of open gaming content can be released under the OGL without bothering Drizzit or the Heroes of the Lance or Zagyg one iota.

#2: Product Sales. If anything that WotC puts out suffers in any respect in sales because of a third party product (and I haven't seen any reliable records to indicate this has even the faintest shred of truth -- internet polls, as I'm sure you know, don't count for much. ), then WotC is dumb to put that product out. I don't think that this is true to begin with, but even if it is, then the sales of that product deserve to be low. Getting away with mediocre also-ran products that couldn't fairly compete in an open gaming context sounds like an even lamer excuse for going away from the OGL than protecting brand identity (which is already about an 8 on the Lame-ometer).

 

[joethelawyer]

When WotC releases it Fan Site Policy we shall see. Until then OGL is far safer than the unknown of the yet to be released policy.

*JoetheLawyer flexes his fingers in eager anticipation of a re-do of the 1994 usenet newsgroup wars. This time he's older, wiser, and much much fatter. Victory shall be his!

See the sig below...

 

[Cadfan]

And yet, that's actually the reason for the OGL, as WOTC itself saw it, when it was introduced, by the author of the OGL. The quote is from the OGL FAQ on the official WOTC website:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d

So it's not really the "sense of entitlement I see from OGL fans" that's rubbing you guys the wrong way, nor is it a conflation or confusion of matters around the OGL. It's actually the declared goal of the OGL itself that is an irritation to you.

Heh. You had a prepared response and you used it on me since I was the first responder even though I didn't talk about a sense of entitlement at all, and instead gave specific reasons why the attitudes expressed were objectionable, resulting in everything you wrote making no sense whatsoever. Classy.

I knew where your quote was from because your "trap" was about the most transparent "trick" I've seen in an internet debate since forums were invented. I googled your text, and read the context. The OGL FAQ was the first result for the excerpt I cut and pasted. After reading it, I decided that, for what I was writing, the context didn't change anything. Which it didn't. You might have noticed that if you had read what I wrote, instead of gleefully posting your canned response.

I stand by what I said. The OGL is primarily a business document relating to for profit third party publishers. This does not involve free speech. And it does not involve the rights of the general public, except tangentially, and in a way that could easily be handled by other approaches. Conflating all of these issues into one is naive at best, and outright manipulative and dishonest at worst.

 

[Erik Mona]

I can think of at least 10,000 people that the OGL benefits.

Or, if you want to count people who download files for free, 36,000.

--Erik

 

[pemerton]

I don't think small and agile is the right tack for WotC. They aren't catering to individual gamers, D&D is a game for the masses. OGL/indie companies can make individualisic games catering towards individual tastes and be successful. D&D is too big to cater to individual tastes, and trying to please everyone waters down the mass appeal of the industry leader.

<snip>

Personally I think the OGL did as much harm as it did good. It flooded the market with D&D clones of varying quality, and tended to weaken the presence of non-D&D games that weren't based off of the OGL. The sense of entitlement I see from OGL fans and the religious fervor over it rubs me the wrong way, and I'm not a WotC worshipper.

I'm not a believer in the OGL. I've never had any real use for it. D&D, even when I was at the height of my frustration with 3.5E, was always enough for me. When I wanted to play something that wasn't D&D, I wanted something truly different.

<snip>

I disagree that OGL was great for the masses. It marginalized systems that weren't based off the d20

<snip>

I am finding that the OGL actually does me harm. It harms my desire for true alternatives to D&D's system, and I find it creates an attitude that D&D owes it to the RPG community to cover all territory and be everything to everybody

The OGL was WONDERFUL for the masses.

<snip>

Once it was out there, the rest of the world took it and ran with it and produced some of the best gaming products ever seen.

<snip>

The OGL is an inspiring thing. It's daring and unique.

<snip>

I mean, it's fair to not really care about the OGL if you like D&D and don't care about playing anything else, but it hardly does you any harm, in that case.

On the whole, I incline more towards TheCasualOblivion than Kamikaze Midget. I don't find the OGL all that inspiring - it's a device adopted by a game publishing company to try to increase the market penetration of their game. It worked to an extent, but (presumably, given that WoTC has turned away from it) not to the extent or in the manner that they were hoping for.

Of course the OGL gave RPG publishers a chance to piggyback on the market and goodwill for D&D - this was beneficial for some of those publishers, but again not especially inspiring to me.

One upshot has been, as TheCasualOblivion points out, that other game systems - many with far more innovative mechanics than the typical d20 game - have been marginalised, to the benefit of D&D players but to the detriment of those who are looking for a community in which to play those other games.

If the OGL had been responsible for increasing the market penetration of innovative RPG mechanics, then I might have found it inspiring. But, in fact, it seems to me that this is something more likely to be achieved by 4e than by any OGL game.

 

[pawsplay]

The less often stated but no less important goal of the OGL, besides growing the business, was creating a "safe habor." The important function from the standpoint of WotC was to avoid having to sue people while still protecting their IP. No one wants to sue people. It's expensive, cases are often complex, and you might lose. Even if you think the case history is solid in your direction, you never know when a judge has decided the societal paradigm has shifted.

 

[I'm A Banana]

many with far more innovative mechanics than the typical d20 game - have been marginalised, to the benefit of D&D players but to the detriment of those who are looking for a community in which to play those other games.

Anything to back that up? Did White Wolf's Storyteller system or Exalted sales suffer more during 3e than otherwise, specifically because of a lot of d20 products? Or is this just a perception born out of an early d20 glut and the fact that any game other than D&D (or "D&D-compatible") is marginalized in the PnPRPG market?

And it's also worth repeating that the OGL isn't d20-specific. Many other games can (and a few did) decide to open up their system in the same way.

I'm going to need more evidence of causality before I buy that the OGL hurt the sales of, I dunno, Dogs in the Vineyard any more than D&D would have without the OGL.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Has WotC taken action against any fansites so far during 4E? Ema's Character sheets has a 4E character manager program, and even charges for it. There is a link to Ema's Character Sheets on the WotC message boards.

Ah, I remember the glory days of Pompeii, when Marcus Aurleanus was heard to remark: "Has Vesuvius killed anyone yet? I don't think so, and therefore there is no reason to worry." The next day, of course, was like any other. And the day after that. But, one day......

The good folks at WotC might all be good folks today.

You don't know who will be in charge tomorrow.


RC