Could the D20/OGL end up hurting WoTC?

[der_kluge]

A very good definition of the "Skaff effect" can be found here.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e

The relevant section for the lazy folks:

Another interesting section. In fact, the entire article is a good read, and should be required reading for every d20 publisher.

The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D.

After reviewing all the factors, I think there's a very, very strong business case that can be made for the idea of embracing the ideas at the heart of the Open Source movement and finding a place for them in gaming.

(emphasis mine)

Could it be that D&D 4.0 is already written? That, all the d20 publishers have essentially already created D&D 4.0 through the d20 license?

 

[Psion]

Could it be that D&D 4.0 is already written? That, all the d20 publishers have essentially already created D&D 4.0 through the d20 license?

I think you are being optimistic. The presumption here was that the designers at WotC would be plugged into what other designers are doing and incorporate improvements into their own rules. I can see a few small ways that has happened, but by and large, it seems like WotC designers march to the beat of their own drum. In part, this is due to the nature of the OGL itself. The designers could integrate OGC, but they would have to release an open product to do it. WotC doesn't seem to be too fond of open products other than the SRD, and considering the ethical kibitzing that went on when some people proposed creating standalone versions of UA, it seems even more doubtful that WotC will draw from others' rules in the future.

Sad, really, because I was rather enthused when Ryan first proposed the concept. But it's just one way in which theory has diverged from reality.

 

[Pramas]

Man, it's the thread that won't die. I may drop back later when I have more time to comment, but I have one quick observation.

Here, easy experiment: Frost & Fur and Frostburn. D20 publisher vs. Wizards.

There was no contest. There was no contention. Indeed, if anything, Frost & Fur sales were increased by the mere fact that the "little guy was trying to compete with Wizards." Which was patently untrue, as the book was simply delayed long enough for the timing of the two books to be close together.

You should go back and reread my posts. Of course, Monkey God got spanked by Frostburn. They brought a knife to a gun fight. No single d20 product or even d20 company is a worry for WotC, as I said pages ago. What I've been trying to communicate is the net effect of the enormous number of d20 products that have been released and the large amount of money they have generated in toto.

 

[Mark]

Man, it's the thread that won't die.

Just cause it's growing, don't mean it ain't dead...

 

[Davelozzi]

I don't know whether or not the d20/OGL licenses are good or bad for WotC, and won't bother guessing.

But I will pipe in on the what happens when I go into the store debate going on between Mearls, Pramas, and others. For me, there is a gaming budget. No, it's not exact, but generally I spend about $80-$100 per month on RPGs. Every couple of weeks I feel justified in dropping $40-$50 on a new book and an adventure or some minis. Anymore than that, and I start to feel a little guilty about my spending, as I'm married and have to share responsibilities for bills an such with my wife.

Furthermore, there is an issue of time. There are plenty of products out there that I'd like to buy and read if I had time, but I only get a chance to plow through so much material in a month. There's no point in dropping an extra $50 above my normal spending, as I won't even be able to give the extra product the attention needed to get my money's worth out of it.

Furthermore, as someone who's been collecting RPG stuff for 20+ years, I've learned that besides major rulebooks, things generally stay in print for just a short time. Therefore, I've learned to anticipate what's coming out and buy the stuff I want when it comes out. Sure if a bunch of cool things come out in August for Gen Con, and nothing cool is happening in September in October, I might go back and buy a book I passed on the first time I flipped through it. But generally, if I don't buy it within the first 3 weeks its on the shelves, chances are that I won't be buying it at all.

So for me at least, though games are certainly luxury purchases, products do compete against each other. I'm not likely to return to the store and purchase any product that is good enough for me to want at all, I have to choose which I want most.

 

[der_kluge]

The designers could integrate OGC, but they would have to release an open product to do it.

IIRC, that's not entirely true. It's their sandbox, they can do what they want. They don't have to open anything open content if they don't want. Everything in the OGC realm is their content, and they can use it, and close it if they want to.

 

[philreed]

IIRC, that's not entirely true. It's their sandbox, they can do what they want. They don't have to open anything open content if they don't want. Everything in the OGC realm is their content, and they can use it, and close it if they want to.

If they elect to use OGC from another company then they have to follow the OGL. It is only for in-house created materials that they can ignore the OGL.

 

[Psion]

IIRC, that's not entirely true. It's their sandbox, they can do what they want. They don't have to open anything open content if they don't want. Everything in the OGC realm is their content, and they can use it, and close it if they want to.

That would be incorrect.

WotC could not, for example, take content from Artificer's Handbook and put it in a closed product without a separate arrangment with the copyright holder, because they do not have the license to do so. Nothing about the OGL affords WotC license beyond what it does anyone else.

Edit: As an example, see the MMII. There are two creatures in there from the Creature Collection. It has an OGL and open content (albeit, only the creatures it pulled from CC are OGC, BID). Was what you were saying true, they would have no obligation to do that.

Now it's OWN content is another matter. They could release their own content in an OGL product, and subsequently release the same content in another non-OGL product, because they owned the content at all time. But nothing would prevent the distribution of the OGC that appeared in the OGL product by other publishers, however.

 

[woodelf]

One final question, and perhaps this is best served by a poll. Do you believe that the advent of the d20 license has caused you to purchase *more* RPG products than you purchased in previous editions? If the answer to that is yes, than my argument is wrong. If it's not, then my argument may have some merit. The answer may be biased, because we're all older now, and make more money, but it's food for thought. I believe my answer to be no. I'm just as selective now as I always have been.

As a proportion of my disposable income (so, adjusting for the changes in my income), yes, i buy a lot more RPGs now than i used to. And a larger %age of my RPG purchases are D20 System now than were D&D in the years '93-'00. OTOH, i was only playing from '94 to '95 (not GMing), and wasn't playing D&D at all from '95 to '00, and had no intention of ever playing D&D again, and iyet bought way more D&D products in that era than i do now. I haven't bought a WotC product since Faeries (Ars Magica 4th). And i believe that is because i, too, am just as selective as i always have been--and yet none of the D&D3E-era WotC books have passed muster. Also, i didn't buy a single D20 System product until last year, for whatever that is worth. The growth of The Forge has probably been the single greatest contributor to my increased RPG purchases--there simply are more interesting games now than before, IMHO. But the WotC OGL/D20SRD has contributed to this somewhat. As an example, Spycraft sucked me in and has me dying to play a game even though, prior to it, i would've said that i don't like the action/espionage genre, in movie, book, or RPG form. So, no, in my case, i don't think it would be accurate to say that the D20STL has "caused" an increase in my RPG purchases.

 

[woodelf]

I don't think that the typical game buyer goes into a store with X dollars to spend. I think that, instead, he goes into the store looking for something interesting and fun to buy. If he sees stuff that he happens to like, he buys it. If he can't afford it, he buys it when he has the money available.
[snip]
I think that both consumers exist, and the first guy, the guy who spends money on RPG books and just tries to find the best ones, is far more common on the Internet, but the guy who has his standards and won't buy until they're met is far more common overall.

IME, it's exactly the other way 'round. The typical gamer spends a certain amount of their disposable income on RPGs, and while that amount varies somewhat due to what's available, she's much more likely to look for another book of interest at the FLGS than just "skip" a month. Only among my friends who are particualrly knowledgable about the whole RPG market (which means those active online) do i see people with money to burn walk into the FLGS and walk back out empty-handed because none of the available books were sufficiently interesting.

Or maybe you're right, with the important understanding that the "standard" of "made by WotC" or "made by WWGS" is frequently applied.

Of course, the whole budget thing really throws a wrench into making an accurate distinction. Frex, i'd consider myself in the "only if it's good enough" category. However, the number of RPG products that i consider good enough is about 2x-3x what i can afford, so my to-buy list adds 2-3 items for every one i can cross off. So i could easily look like the "spend X on RPGs" guy, because pretty much any time i walk into the FLGS there's stuff i want that meets or exceeds the funds i have with me. Frex, i budgeted $100 to spend on myself for my b-day. And, despite them being out of the two $40 books i'd planned on getting (Deliria & [i forget]), i found myself deciding among roughly $300 worth of books. Now, maybe to the outsider that looks like "i've got $100 to spend, and i'm gonna find *something* to spend it on". But i assure you that there've been times i went into the FLGS intending to spend some mad-money, and walked out empty-handed because i didn't want to special-order and nothing that appealed was in at the time.