Adamant Ventures 4th early as well

[I'm A Banana]

Primal Order didn't make WoTC a big player,

I don't think anyone thinks that 3pp's will be big players from this (at least, not right away).

I think that some people think they can get away with circumventing the GSL like this.

Meaning that the GSL will be a failure for its major purpose: to get people to publish D&D supplements. If most "D&D supplements" don't use the GSL, it's failed for that purpose.

Of course, this ignores the "GSL is meant to be rejected" hypothesis.

No, the comparison to Primal Order is just to point out that yes, it's possible, yes, it has been done, yeah, it probably will be done if the license isn't good enough, and maybe, sure, the license might not be good enough.

Basically: TSR didn't need to grant gracious permission to WotC for Primal Order, and WotC might not need to grant gracious permission for anyone for 4e-compatible products that just don't use certain terms.

That doesn't mean that the people making them will be big players, but it might mean that the GSL is, to use the vernacular, "Full of Suck."

(all hypothetical and possible, right?)

 

[Maggan]

I think this is sillybuggers nonsense, frankly. For some, sure. For most? Including those publishing under the OGL right now? I don't think so. It seems like you're attempting to smear all those who don't like the GSL by hinting that maybe they "Just don't like rules maaaaan!". Which is pretty underhanded of you in my book.

Name names if you have them, don't go for political-style vague smears you don't.

Man what? Well, there's this guy Peter, who's always going on about people not having to use the OGL at all. And then there's Anders, who's been trying to tell people (EDIT: for clarity: me and my co-authors of some d20 articles for a magazine here in Sweden called Fenix) that their use of the OGL is stupid. And some other guys I chat with sometimes, but I don't know their names, only their handles.

Seriously, I did say "some". I didn't say "all". I didn't say "publishers". Geez, I just said that some people think that the OGL was restrictive, and that's hardly any news to anyone who's been following this whole business for eight years, is it?

You even said "some, sure". So what's with the outrage? You're agreeing with me, for petes sake.

???

/M

 

[Scribble]

So you didn't read the GSL?

Did you?

Because it has few good guidelines about how things should be done. It mostly says "No" to certain things. I don't see much positive guidance in it.

Because saying no is quicker / easier to define somethign then saying yes to everything that's allowed.

I can either put a sign that says the maximum speed you can drive is 45. Or I can put 45 individual signs stating what speeds one can drive on the road... Which is better???

It doesn't have any sort of controls apart from entirely pulling the plug on a certain company, either.

Yes it does. Otherwise people wouldn't be so annoyed.

It gives guidelines on how to use the brand in your products.

The game itself gives guidelines on how to make new monsters, and damage ranges / skill DC ranges per level. More then we got in 3e.

None of the "crap" I'm referring to go any rules significantly wrong. I mean, you wanna give me some examples of stuff that did?

Creature collection 1 is one of the prime examples people use. There are others.

What do you mean if not crp because it doesn't work right? If you mean crap as in you just didn't like it.. that's a prefference thing.

Because that's not what I mean.

Or are you just saying no matetr what I say it won't be that? Schroedinger's Answer?

It was crap because after the first year, which was just screaming chaos and people rushing stuff to market (and thus creating crap - we may see less of this in 4E due to the enforced delay, but I suspect that just delays the opening of the crapgates), it seems like the only people who still wanted to do d20 STL stuff were those with extremely limited ambitions and extremely dull products.

I'm not sure what this means?

As for you later post and "room for ideas and options", well, that's not what I want to buy. I want to buy books that change 4E into a game closer to what I want.

What incentive does WoTC have for this? If you don't want to buy D&D then why do they want to license their brand out to a company to comepete with them when they make nothing in return? Thats pretty poor business sense...

I don't want to work everyday. Hey I know, YOU have a job right? How about I take your paycheck, and I can just hang out watching TV and posting on En world...

That's not possible without actually redefining or altering some rules, sadly.

Yes, it is. You cannot redefine, but you can create your own, that can be used in place.

Something WotC encourages us to do ourselves. That's what really bites my ass. I'm allowed to do, but a professional game designer isn't allowed to. Great. Thanks for that WotC.

because you're not profiting off of the new rule. new game designers can stil design new ideas anc concepts... They just can't use a defined term to name them.

Again, some of the crappiest crapbooks for 4E were books full of "ideas and options" like the godawful race and class books people were putting out. Ugh. No doubt we'll see plenty more of that tripe.

That's personal prefference. Some people probably liked them. I also saw things like the books of might, and psychics handbook, and books of spells though that were great in my opinion.

I

don't know if I agree that it "fractured the market" either. I'd love to know what your basis for that argument is. Virtually all the SUCCESSFUL d20 games I can think of are in a different genre to D&D (and yes, Sword and Sorcery is a different genre to D&D's strange D&D-unique high fantasy blend). They didn't fracture the market, it was already fractured. I guess you could argue Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes as market-fracturers, but I think that's pushing your luck, as I doubt either sold epic numbers of copies. Also, Arcana Unearthed, at least, would be close to possible under the GSL.

Because they'e all d20 games based off of the concepts in D&D that push people towards purchasing things other then D&D.

Instead of say, creating a new concept and just selling the changes, they went so far as to create a new game that didn't require the core books anymore.

Now gamers choose between X system or D&D.

It just wouldn't happen because no-one as smart as your average game designer is going to give WotC the right to randomly end his product line now and forever. That's the real problem here, and I think you agree that it's basically a bad idea on WotC's part. No doubt it's the product of the legal department, not something Scott Rouse or others favour (where I could believe the other provisions make sense to them as you've described).

Again I think this is a product of gamers tending toward the paranoid side, and not being used to legal contracts. (I'd like to see what a contract letting someone use Mikey Mouse on their product looks like.)

I mean, I don't think you're entirely wrong. I just think the GSL contains some terms so vile that you're not going to get much that isn't crap in it, and that's sad. I can understand attempting to focus their core market together like you suggest. I can't understand why they want a provision that only exists to scare off anyone who places any value or pride in their work.

Because ultimately people will either use it and support them.

Or they won't, but also won't use it against them. (even if it's only in their eyes.)

 

[Tewligan]

What? Maybe it is the language thing playing tricks on me again, but you lost me with your clever comments.

I know that he is talking about WotC. But last I checked, Primal Order didn't make WoTC a big player, quite au contraire. Magic the Gathering did, which enabled them to buy them TSR, making them the leader of the RPG-marked.

I'm not saying that Primal Order was WotC's ticket to Awesometown - although, it was a damn fine supplement that was pretty well thought of at the time, as were the other PO books they put out. Just pointing out that there's precedent for companies putting out quality products without any official branding, being recognized for the quality that they produce, and going on to bigger and more lucrative things. So, I think we can all now agree that the thing I "tried to do there" did, in fact, work.

 

[The Little Raven]

I know you think D&D is a license to print money, but I don't think 3E would have been remotely as successful as it was without the aforementioned "market-fracturing" companies supporting it and retaining interest in d20 gaming.

You don't seem to understand the power of branding.

Mention the term RPG to a normal non-gamer and they might possibly know what you're talking about. Mention D&D and they will definitely will. Hell, when I used to describe V:TM to people back in high school, I basically told them "It's D&D, but you play vampires in modern times." and 99.9% of the time, they knew exactly what I was talking about. I'd say the word RPG and their eyes would glaze over.

The OGL was a nice boon to WotC in the era of 3rd Edition, and helped promote sales among the more hardcore (the ones more likely to buy things from small publishers), but to suggest that it was the sole reason for D&D's continued dominance of the market strikes me as either being ignorant of or ignoring the power of marketing and brand management.

 

[BryonD]

You don't seem to understand the power of branding.

You don't seem to understand the power of a diverse support base.

You are vastly selling the customer base short if you think people whose eyes glaze over at "RPG" are good examples. If you want to talk about people who actually SPEND MONEY on games, then you have completely missed the boat.

 

[The Little Raven]

Just pointing out that there's precedent for companies putting out quality products without any official branding, being recognized for the quality that they produce, and going on to bigger and more lucrative things.

Yes, but this was despite the fact that the move, putting out a product that employs someone else's game mechanics without permission, nearly killed the company. That is a very important factor when looking at that situation. It wasn't that precedent which made them a big company... it nearly buried them. Magic saved them from the disaster that Primal Order caused.

Peter Adkinson was warned before Primal Order was published that he might run into some legal troubles with other game companies, because of his use of their game mechanics and referencing their systems/settings. He went ahead anyway, and his company nearly died because of it.

Now, we've got two companies who are doing something along similar lines, putting out non-branded products for use with another company's game mechanics without their permission, and people are saying they might run into some legal troubles with Wizards.

If it happened once, it could certainly happen again. And are AE and GG really prepared to go toe-to-toe with a giant like WotC over this, when Palladium (as a much smaller company) was almost the deathknell for WotC?

 

[The Little Raven]

You don't seem to understand the power of a diverse support base.

Because of my job, I guarantee I understand the power of a diverse support base as good as, or better than, most of the people on these forums. I deal with the results of diverse customer base feedback nearly every single day at work.

You are vastly selling the customer base short if you think people whose eyes glaze over at "RPG" are good examples. If you want to talk about people who actually SPEND MONEY on games, then you have completely missed the boat.

This is the problem. You're simply talking about gamer retention, whereas I am talking about the real effect of proper brand management: increasing your customer base to include brand new customers. If people shrug when they hear RPG, but nod when they hear D&D, then the brand is definitely worth something, especially when the affirmative response towards the brand comes from those not normally associated with it.

 

[Saracenus]

This is the problem. You're simply talking about gamer retention, whereas I am talking about the real effect of proper brand management: increasing your customer base to include brand new customers. If people shrug when they hear RPG, but nod when they hear D&D, then the brand is definitely worth something, especially when the affirmative response towards the brand comes from those not normally associated with it.

Mourn,

You have hit the proud nail on the head. WotC has been signaling all along during the run up to 4e that they want to capture as much of the existing D&D market that they can and in six months start expanding that market to those that haven't come over to it.

The 3e/OGL was a great tool for getting people excited about D&D again and did a great job of bringing people back into the fold (it brought me back after I abandoned the brand during the years of 2e suck). Add the fact the 3e/OGL was a good proving ground for a whole new passel of designer (Merles made the case for this in a recent blog) and reinvigorated the brand.

On the downside it was not a simple game to learn and the barriers to entry for brand new players meant that 3e was not optimal at capturing new players outside the normal channels bringing new blood to the hobby.
Add the fact that RPGs are huge in the electronic gaming side of the business (where a whole generation of players have never heard table top gaming) and WotC had to start thinking about the future of the hobby and their own business survival. To wit, capture that young market that will drive the sales of their books for decades to come.

So the GSL (something I think sucks for us old-timey gamers) is actually a good business move for them because it keeps their brand coherent and gives them lots of control over it. Because as Mourn has stated lots of people that don't know the term RPG or OGL know that something called D&D is out there... and that is a powerful place to start bringing them in.

Anyway, that is my two coppers...

 

[cangrejoide]

On the downside it was not a simple game to learn and the barriers to entry for brand new players meant that 3e was not optimal at capturing new players outside the normal channels bringing new blood to the hobby.
Add the fact that RPGs are huge in the electronic gaming side of the business (where a whole generation of players have never heard table top gaming) and WotC had to start thinking about the future of the hobby and their own business survival. To wit, capture that young market that will drive the sales of their books for decades to come.

So the GSL (something I think sucks for us old-timey gamers) is actually a good business move for them because it keeps their brand coherent and gives them lots of control over it. Because as Mourn has stated lots of people that don't know the term RPG or OGL know that something called D&D is out there... and that is a powerful place to start bringing them in.

Anyway, that is my two coppers...

You make a very valid point, one I hadn't even started to consider.

I know many people who started with 3.5 who will switch to 4E, but how many that will start with 4E will even bat an eye at 3E?