NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 4203068" data-attributes="member: 13098">In the back of my mind, there was something bothering me.  I let it sit so I could ponder it a bit.  Now, I think I can contribute to the conversation without being incendiary.There are a number of games that dropped their systems in favor of adopting d20/OGL.  This wasn't because they couldn't exist without the d20 ruleset.  Nor would it be accurate to say that these companies felt their systems were mechanically inferior.  It would probably be fair to say these games wanted to tap into the ease of the learning curve by borrowing from the most popular RPG out there.  When you pick up a new game/setting, there are a few things that often need to be learned.  There are setting specific aspects that need to be learned.  Like if you pick up a sci-fi game, you need to learn the setting races, planets, technologies, etc.  This is something you need to learn anyway to enjoy playing the game setting.  But you also need to learn the mechanics.  Regardless of what the mechanics are, and how they model the game reality, you need to learn them.  By adopting the mechanics for the most popular system out there, you are able to cut down the learning curve for a new setting.  Mechanics are boring, when you get right down to it.  Though, there are times when mechanics model a particular aspect of a setting in a very creative manner.  Nevertheless, the learning curve for mechanics means you spend less time playing the game.  If you cut down the learning curve for mechanics, you speed up the time it takes for a given group to get to game play.  This is not to say that a game couldn't have existed without access to the d20 ruleset.  Many, many games could have reinvented the wheel and created their own mechanics.  However, with the benefit of hindsight, I think it is safe to say that in some way, shape or form, an open gaming license, using some sort of mechanics would have eventually existed.  If for no other reason, than Ryan Dancey would have created the interest, somehow, after he left WotC.  However, by having multiple companies adopt the d20 ruleset, WotC gained quite a bit.  To be sure, other companies gained as well.  By making it easier to adopt their game system, since it built upon d20, they were able to appeal to a wider audience.  But WotC kept more people discussing and developing around d20 for a much longer period of time as well.  There was a feedback loop, as predicted, with the OGL.  To be sure, there is a splintering effect as well.  Games that became significant enough to build a rich customer base have been able to carve out their own niche.  However, it is disingenuous to presume that these games can only exist because of the OGL.  They may have been more successful because of the OGL structure.  It might be that something about the OGL structure served as inspiration as a development jumping off point.  But it could also be that some of these games adopted the OGL simply because it serves the gaming market well.  I think games such as Traveller and Runequest are strong examples of this.  Both certainly existed long before the OGL.  They had devoted fan communities that helped push fan based development even when companies were having difficulty maintaining success.  Why would these games adopt the OGL?I am sure there are a number of reasons, but one of those reasons is because the OGL facilitates continued development, even if a corporate entity has difficulties for whatever reason.  Another reason, at least for the ones that have adopted a significant portion of the d20 mechanics, is to decrease the learning curve for some gamers.  Despite the number of gamers out there, this is still a relatively niche market.  One way to help it grow is to adopt a solid set of mechanics and devote more time toward developing customers rather than new ways of modelling gaming realities.  WotC did quite a bit with the OGL to improve the gaming market.  This is certainly true!  And if you believe in the benefits of the Open Gaming movement, than WotC has certainly been one of the biggest contributors.  But I beleive it was a visionary mindset, driven largely by Ryan Dancey, along with the recognition that information models were drastically changing, for example, the adoption of the internet, that made the creation of the OGL much less risky when D&D 3.0 was released.  WotC was certainly aware of the bad blood generated by the cease and desist orders TSR threw at fan sites.  WotC was also aware that a significant portion of the market was hesitant to see what they would do with the D&D brand/property.  After all, a lot of gamers perceived that Magic did a lot of harm to the RPG market.  Anecdotally, I can share my own stories.  The D20STL and the OGL were tools used to combat these fears and help gamers feel better about adopting the new system.  So yes, the OGL was generous.  But I think it served WotC's interests quite admirably.  Now WotC wants to step back from that.  Obviously, they have other interests that they feel will be better served by the GSL now.  But please, just because a certain game adopted the OGL and used d20 mechanics, don't assume that game couldn't exist without WotC's generosity.</blockquote>

Verification