D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[trancejeremy]

Even in the relatively early days of d20, the smart companies recognized the value of building up their own brand and core game, as opposed to simply filling in the niches WOTC left to them.

I think even had 4e used the OGL, Pathfinder probably would have happened, because there were simply a large amount of people who simply were are/are not interested in leaving 3.x.

And let's be honest - the only thing WOTC really has going for it is owning the D&D name. In terms of quality, they are essentially a middle of the pack company, pretty much on par with Mongoose, definitely far, far behind Paizo and say, Green Ronin in the quality of their product.

And quite honestly, while Pathfinder might be open, are there really a lot of 3PP supporting it of note? Some PDF companies, you have the Frog Gog stuff which seems to aim at the high end market with very high book prices, and that seems to be it. And what exists doesn't hurt Paizo/Pathfinder because no one can beat Paizo at product quality.

That's not the case with WOTC. Maybe things have gotten better with 4e, but a lot of their 3e product was among the worst products made by even the worst shovelware d20 companies.

So actually, maybe WOTC should just stop making D&D? License out the past editions to other companies? It's never going to make the kind of money Hasbro wants, they aren't going to support the game in terms of quality that a smaller company would...

 

[Starman]

I would hat to see 6e having to fight a retro clone of 5e as hard as 4e fights pathfinder.

Why not? Competition is good. I want WotC or any other game company working their asses off to make the best product possible and not feeling like they can just coast on previous successes. I want game designers constantly feeling like they have to up their game or someone else is going to come along and eat their lunch.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are comparing the rules to razor blades.

<snip>

Bottom line, if I'm WOTC, there is absolutely no way I give away the rules again. That's too much like Gillette giving away their blades. Ain't gonna happen.

Whether 5E's ruleset is the proper analog to Gillette's razor blades depends a great deal on what WotC's business plan is going forward. Maybe they will continue to rely on rulebook sales as their primary profit center; and then again, maybe they won't.

A possible alternative: when he was asked about it at PAX East, Mike Mearls was pretty quick to point out that their board game line had become a profit center in its own right, and that this was taking some of the burden off of the TTRPG line. Perhaps he wants to move away from relying on rulebook sales and sees them more as an advertisement campaign to generate sales of the board games?

This is utterly speculative, of course, but the point is that there may be alternatives. And, given that the "new rulebook every five years" business model isn't the most stable in the world, I don't doubt that alternatives are being explored.

 

[Oni]

I think that's the wishful thinking of the devoted fan who wants to think he is important to his hobby, insead of just one extra face in the mob.

You are right in that the most vocal ones can change the tenor of the conversation. But "do like I want, or I'll be spouting bile in the internet against you" shouldn't be a reason to hear.

I hope WotC goes with OGL. But I honestly doubt it's a good idea for them. OGL created the company that is killing them, which might not be the greatest idea as a bussiness model. Do I enjoy of it as a customer? Sure. I like Paizo's game. I like variety and diversity. But would I be happy if I were Hasbro shareholder? That's a different issue.

I've introduced 7 new people to RPGs in the last year, Pathfinder in particular along with a couple of my other favorites. While that number might pale in comparison to some people, I'd say it speaks pretty well to whether or not I'm helping out the hobby. And frankly I don't even consider myself a particularly hardcore fan, there are a lot of people that pursue this with a lot more gusto than I do. If every face in the mob was doing that then everyone wouldn't be bemoaning the health of the hobby, thank you very much.

My message wasn't to say do what I want or I'll crap on your game and make sure no one buys it. My message your devoted fans happy by doing the sorts of things they care about (that simultaneously don't make the game less accessible to others) and they will help sell the game for you. However the reverse is also something to be kept in mind, pissing off your ardent supporters is generally not the brightest move.

And let's get this bit of fiction out of the way, the OGL didn't create Pathfinder or make WotC's biggest rival, it only made it possible. There is a difference. What actually created those things was WotC choices when it came to radically changing the game, ditching the OGL and simultaneously making it harder for other companies to work with the new game while at the same time insisting that if they did they would be mandated to stop supporting the OGL game that had been their bread and butter.

 

[Henry]

To go back to the razor blade knock offs a second, Gillette still makes good money off of their sales, in a field full of knock-offs.

This is utterly speculative, of course, but the point is that there may be alternatives. And, given that the "new rulebook every five years" business model isn't the most stable in the world, I don't doubt that alternatives are being explored.

Exactly. Paizo's "razor blades" are their adventure path monthlies - by several accounts, that's their "bread and butter", and they make a pretty healthy living off of those subscriptions. In their model, the rules drive AP sales and vice versa. Few analogies are perfect, but my main point is that the barn door has been opened, and there's no going back -- open content, whether literature, computer code, or game rules, is here to stay, and I prefer it as a model, both to foster innovation and to promote good ideas among wider user bases. Because it's here to stay, WotC needs to take it into account, because the base they're wooing needs a reason to leave something as powerful as open licensing.

 

[Hussar]

I've banged this drum before and I'll do it again. How can you have an OGL that plays nicely with the DDI?

A major element of the DDI is the character builder. If 4e had been open, we would have had a free character builder within months of release (which we actually had before it got shut down) that was largely a cut and paste job from Wizard's own material.

Given that the DDI is pretty darn successful, and that a free OGL system would allow someone to put up a free character/monster/adventure builder, how would you sell the idea of an open gaming license to Hasbro? How much money are you going to lose from subscriptions vs how much money would you gain from OGL holdouts?

 

[Mark CMG]

I've banged this drum before and I'll do it again. How can you have an OGL that plays nicely with the DDI?

Seems that is what WotC better figure out if they want a more successful DDI and the most successful D&D. They obviously aren't content with a D&D competing with the OGL and don't feel the DDI is as successful as it could be and certainly not successful enough to overcome the OGL market on its own or they would not be developing a new edition this soon. The argument seems to be that unless they want to continue to lose more folks, those that will lapse with 4E simply added to all the others who have lapsed with previous editions, and unless they want to continue to compete with even more OGL games while not having one of their own, then they better figure out a way to make an OGL D&D that works with the DDI.

 

[dd.stevenson]

How can you have an OGL that plays nicely with the DDI?

<snip>

How much money are you going to lose from subscriptions vs how much money would you gain from OGL holdouts?

I agree that WotC's plans for the OGL/SRD will be closely related to their plans for the DDI. There is a pretty clear tradeoff between giving information away for free vs. charging people to access it.

But so far, Mearls' remarks about the future of DDI have been pretty tepid, compared with the generally glowing things he has to say about open gaming.

• "We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition. We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." - Mike Mearls.

• "I think that an open license speaks to how people think about D&D, and in some ways it is a big part of the game’s culture. We want people to feel like we’re making an effort to include everything that they love about the game, and we’re exploring options for third party publishers." - Mike Mearls.

In my estimation, Mearls has been talking like a businessman who intends to make money selling games to OGL fans rather than by selling DDI subscriptions. But I could be wrong, or his plans may change. I guess only time will tell for sure.

 

[MacMathan]

I think they just need to get about 60% towards an OGL and, this being the most important, get it out with enough lead time and encouragement as companies due with new consoles that they want to be successful.

Get enough names on board with an app store approach, leverage Ipads, Kindles, Xbox, Google+ etc and I think people will come.

I am still not convinced that the majority (or even a significant minority) of players even know what the OGL is much. Heck the majority that I observe do not even come to EN so I would place it an order of magnitude below the numbers here.

 

[triqui]

People talk about this like it was some sort of inevitability that the OGL would bring about a major, direct competitor to WotC. In fact, while that is what happened, it was by no means a given.

I once throw a stone to a dog, and the dog bite me. It was by no means a given, the dog might had run frightened, but that's what happened. So I won't throw stones against dogs, ever.

WotC might be right about how inevitable the OGL was, or they might be wrong. Maybe it was not a given, but it is what happened. People learn by their experiences, and that's what WotC will do. 100% of the times I threw a stone to a dog, the dog bited me: 1/1. There won't be a second try.

100% of the times WotC went with an OGL system, it generated a competitor that is devastating them. Right or wrong, that's their experience.