Could the D20/OGL end up hurting WoTC?

[Ranger REG]

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.

Well, Ryan is no longer with the company, as is Peter Adkison, and many others that are pro-OGC have left under scrutiny (like Anthony Valterra), but the inter-office politics is still brewing between those pro-OGC and anti-OGC factions.

BUT, we have seen some strides, albeit baby-step strides, such as D&D's Unearthed Arcana and d20 Modern's Weapons Locker. I'd like to see more UA series, utilizing third-party OGC and integrate into the D&D game as variant rules, although they could improve on how to implement them seamlessly.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

WotC doesn't seem to be too fond of open products other than the SRD

This is something I've wondered about. As a consumer, I'd love to see material WotC creates but doesn't subsequently support get further attention. Wouldn't it behoove WotC to release, either as OGC or into the SRD, at least some of the content of books like the "complete" series, Frostburn, or the monster books after the MM? Again, as a consumer, if I pick up, say, a module from, say, Necromancer, and it contains an NPC Warlock (from a theoretically OGC Complete Arcane), if I really dig that class, I will likely pick up CA to see what other cool gewgaws it contains. The same goes for monsters; if a third-party publisher includes a legendary animal (for example), I may well pick up one of the WotC books that contain legendary animals if I really like the concept. Why doesn't WotC see that? Or, assuming WotC does see that, what outweighs the benefits in its estimation?

 

[woodelf]

What's to prove?

Let me put it another way, for those who seem to think it's a "theory" (it's not so much a theory as an observation.) For that matter, if you look back at the post you quoted I wasn't even suggesting it universally held true.

You are never going to come to the right conclusion totally neglecting any benefits WotC gains in terms of additional core books sold driven by d20 supplement sales. As I was saying before, nobody but WotC can make an informed guess as to how much of a benefit this is, but somehow I think that they wouldn't keep updating the SRD and so forth if they didn't feel they reaped some benefit from it.

However, that's not the Skaff Effect, as posited by Ryan Dancey (and others): the claim was that all RPG sales ultimately benefit the market leader in RPGs--not just D20 System sales. If the Skaff Effect is true, then the more nWoD sells, the better WotC does; the more the folks over at The Forge thrive, the more money WotC makes; and so on. I can't say it's definitely not true, but neither is it self-evidently true. I'd think that at least *some* other RPGs would compete with D&D sales. Or, perhaps that we'd have more like an oligopoly, rather than a monopoly--that several "cartels" would exist, which feed into each other. Maybe D20 System, WWGS, The Forge, Palladium, frex.

I'm skeptical that, even in the long term, the D20 System-haters over at The Forge, frex, will ever contribute, directly or indirectly, to WotC's sales, frex.

 

[woodelf]

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.

I have to agree with Psion--WotC's refusal to embrace both sides of open-content development is a real disappointment. Especially when others seem to get the most accolades for raw mechaniccal innovation. I'd love to think that D&D4E was going to benefit from the very best of D20 System developments, but i seriously doubt it.

 

[MerricB]

This is something I've wondered about. As a consumer, I'd love to see material WotC creates but doesn't subsequently support get further attention. Wouldn't it behoove WotC to release, either as OGC or into the SRD, at least some of the content of books like the "complete" series, Frostburn, or the monster books after the MM? Again, as a consumer, if I pick up, say, a module from, say, Necromancer, and it contains an NPC Warlock (from a theoretically OGC Complete Arcane), if I really dig that class, I will likely pick up CA to see what other cool gewgaws it contains. The same goes for monsters; if a third-party publisher includes a legendary animal (for example), I may well pick up one of the WotC books that contain legendary animals if I really like the concept. Why doesn't WotC see that? Or, assuming WotC does see that, what outweighs the benefits in its estimation?

Especially with monsters, they've got to be careful about how long after the book is published that they release them. If MM3 had been added to the SRD the day it was published, there are a significant number of people who wouldn't have bought it at all.

Andy Smith has said that the Planar Handbook is on the list of things to add; I think Fiend Folio has been mentioned as well.

It is also worth remembering that in a typical year, there will be 36 adventures published (Dungeon Magazine) that can use all D&D books, as well as a further 100 or so adventures (RPGA adventures/Living Greyhawk) that can likewise use all the books.

(How many adventures did NG release last year? 6 at most?)

Cheers!

 

[Mark]

I'm skeptical that, even in the long term, the D20 System-haters over at The Forge, frex, will ever contribute, directly or indirectly, to WotC's sales, frex.

Why would you use The Forge as an example? Do they even contribute significantly to their own sales? Seriously, is there any hard data on how well any single company that waves the Indie Game Company banner does please point me to it? The few I've spoken with directly run the gambit from discussing it like an expensive hobby that they get some joy from pursuing to those who scramble to get an idea for a game or two into print and make enough to justify printing costs, and some months even their time.

Are you sure that "all" RPG sales really meant just that or rather that it was shorthand for companies in "all successful corners of the market" like SJG, WW, WotC, etc. I don't think I'd even place Palladium that high, though, since while I suppose it's longevity is some measure, I don't think of them as a juggernaut of new products coupled with a variety of lines leading to notable financial success (like SJG, WW, and WotC, seem to exhibit). I'd be tempted to slide Fantasy Flight Games, and maybe AEG and Green Ronin up into the mix, though the latter two still rely heavily on the d20/OGL sales even though they might be on the cusp of being large enough to consider.

Anyway, that woiuld all make more sense to me in the context of what was being proffered by Dancey back then, IIRC.

As far as WotC embracing open content development more fully (beyond the SRD and a few OGL'd passages or variant rules books), across the board, it wouldn't serve their interests or the market. Except for the ocassional nod to one of their old cronies/employees, once WotC seriously starts pointing up this developer or that developer they would essentially create a middle tier of "approved" third party publishers and likely collapse the market as a whole. It would be tantamount to them handing out free use of the D&D license to some and relegating all others to lower-class citizen status. While that wouldn't likely harm most of the publishers on the lowest rungs, and it wouldn't take away the ladder, it would effectively strip publishers from the middle of the ladder and remove the rungs in that section, leaving some hand-picked pubs above and most below. This might serve those above for some period of time, those below would no longer be any real help toward core book sales. Those above might be stronger toward that end for some time, but sooner or later they would either need to be content with the level to which they were elevated or need to become more competitive with WotC directly, at which point they too would no longer be of use to WotC. Nope. IMO, WotC needs to do their own thing and keep playing the lofty, benevolent patron and custodian of the licensewith only passing praise to some publishers lest they undermine what they get from the grand experiment.

 

[Psion]

However, that's not the Skaff Effect, as posited by Ryan Dancey (and others): the claim was that all RPG sales ultimately benefit the market leader in RPGs--not just D20 System sales.

Perhaps I am mislabeling what I am referring to here. (In fact, I am. Looking back at Ryan's article, the principle I am actually thinking of is referred to in the same article as the Skaff Effect, it's not the same thing.) The Skaff effect is a secondary effect to this end, but I am more directly referring to the effect that the core book of a line is evergreen, and supplement sales drive sales of the core books.

There's this little thing in business called opportunity cost. Sure, WotC could get some profit out of printing some of the supplements that other publishers produce, but they earn far more out of publishing core books. Some smaller print run projects would be outright unprofitable for WotC. Some of the more lucrative supplements they will go for, but chances are you won't see any books for WotC on some of the more peripheral topics that were once supported by TSR and are now supported by third party publishers. (As a side note, this is what annoys me most about WotC's decision to withdraw creatures like the mind flayer from the final SRD; chances are we won't see nice Mind Flayer support from WotC that we might have seen from third party publishers.)

 

[Henry]

However, that's not the Skaff Effect, as posited by Ryan Dancey (and others): the claim was that all RPG sales ultimately benefit the market leader in RPGs--not just D20 System sales. If the Skaff Effect is true, then the more nWoD sells, the better WotC does; the more the folks over at The Forge thrive, the more money WotC makes; and so on.

There's one word that seems to be neglected here, and that's "ultimately". The reason Skaff Elias believes it (believed? I dunno - haven't heard from him in a year or so) is that most gamers ultimately come to D&D, and do so in cycles, and it has to do with that huge network of regular D&D players out there. However, the reason I think Dancey then wanted d20 to succeed is that it lessens the time it takes for these players to make that cycle back to D&D - after all, the more systems to try, the more spread out people are in their "cycle of D&D and back again." It's the difference between a 100 yard racetrack and a one-mile racetrack. The runners will get back to start, but it's taking them longer.

I know it's been my experience, though others of course differ. What has always brought me and mine back to the game table, even after a long absence, or a splitting of the group because different people are playing different things, has been someone saying, "Let's get everyone together and play some D&D." Just this past month, it's been a good example, because two or three of our players have been out because they wanted D&D, even if we were playing Feng Shui or something else. This weekend or next, we're going back to our Eberron game, and when we do, you can bet serious money all the players will be back again. D&D is the Rome of Gaming (as in "all roads lead to...")

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It is also worth remembering that in a typical year, there will be 36 adventures published (Dungeon Magazine) that can use all D&D books, as well as a further 100 or so adventures (RPGA adventures/Living Greyhawk) that can likewise use all the books.

(How many adventures did NG release last year? 6 at most?)

Cheers!

I see your point, but, as I'm sure you're very well aware, even Dungeon doesn't include all that much from WotC's non-Core books. I feel that they would do well to perhaps make at least part of their new releases OGC, so as to generate more interest for their own books by way of third-party support. For example, say WotC released just a few Prestige classes from Frostburn (for example) as OGC, and if a publisher like Necromancer used a Knight of the Iron Glacier as an NPC in a module, couldn't that help generate further interest in Frostburn? Or is it just that WotC is so much bigger than everyone else, that they feel the level of any such interest would be too small-scale to be worth the effort?

 

[woodelf]

Perhaps I am mislabeling what I am referring to here. (In fact, I am. Looking back at Ryan's article, the principle I am actually thinking of is referred to in the same article as the Skaff Effect, it's not the same thing.) The Skaff effect is a secondary effect to this end, but I am more directly referring to the effect that the core book of a line is evergreen, and supplement sales drive sales of the core books.

Sure. I've got some minor disagreements with the applicability of the theory of network externalities, but i think it's basically sound. It's the Skaff Effect that i think is bunk.

There's one word that seems to be neglected here, and that's "ultimately". The reason Skaff Elias believes it (believed? I dunno - haven't heard from him in a year or so) is that most gamers ultimately come to D&D, and do so in cycles, and it has to do with that huge network of regular D&D players out there.

No, i didn't miss it. Thus my example. Among those who frequent The Forge, there is a sub-group of vocal D20 System-haters. I'm confident that many of that sub-group (1) travel in circles where nobody is going to offer them a game of D&D and/or (2) would choose not gaming over playing D&D. To disprove the notion that "all RPG sales ultimately benefit the RPG market leader", i only need to find one counter-example. Now, like i said, i'm willing to believe that the market leader in a genre benefits disproportionately from its market share--the theory of network externalities. The theory of network externalities is also a tried and accepted theory bigger than the RPG (or adventure gaming) world. The Skaff Effect is a hypothesis that doesn't, IMHO, pass the sniff test. It's the "all" formulation that i think is BS (or at least wishful thinking). I think there's a noticeable segment of RPers who don't come back to D&D. Not a huge segment, but a measureable one. It's made up of indie-loving D20-System-haters, die-hard Palladium fans, WoD fans who are "too sophisticated" for D20 System, and other little segments, all over the place. [to be clear: i know that there are Forge-ites, Palladium players, and Storyteller fans who playd D20 System. There're also at least a few who don't.]

However, the reason I think Dancey then wanted d20 to succeed is that it lessens the time it takes for these players to make that cycle back to D&D - after all, the more systems to try, the more spread out people are in their "cycle of D&D and back again." It's the difference between a 100 yard racetrack and a one-mile racetrack. The runners will get back to start, but it's taking them longer.

And as much as i wish it were otherwise, that seems to be the way it is for many gamers. And if you want to promote this, then, yes, the fewer systems out there, the better. However, i think that fewer systems is a bad thing, in and of itself, so i think it's a bad end, whatever it may also be a means towards. Because, for me, part of the interest of new RPGs is now mechanics, not just new settings. Also, because i want to see greater innovation in RPGs, and thus faster evolution, i actively fight against the existence of a "default" RPG, and will continue to do so. If i can't actually prevent it, i'll certainly do anything possible to change that dynamic. If i can't set up a different dynamic, i'm certainly not interested in aiding a "bad" dynamic.

I know it's been my experience, though others of course differ. What has always brought me and mine back to the game table, even after a long absence, or a splitting of the group because different people are playing different things, has been someone saying, "Let's get everyone together and play some D&D." Just this past month, it's been a good example, because two or three of our players have been out because they wanted D&D, even if we were playing Feng Shui or something else. This weekend or next, we're going back to our Eberron game, and when we do, you can bet serious money all the players will be back again. D&D is the Rome of Gaming (as in "all roads lead to...")

And, apparently, that is true for a vast chunk of the market. But not all of it. I happen to travel in a circle of gamers where the predominant attitude towards D20 System in general, and D&D3E in particular, is best summed up as "love/hate". It comes around on a regular basis not because it's the only game everybody likes, but because it's the only game everybody doesn't hate. People come out of the woodwork for particular GMs, not particular game systems--if Dan or Seth or Jere runs it, the game'll be full. Regardless of system. I don't personally know any gamers who'll only play D20 System, i know a couple who absolutely won't, but mostly i know gamers who either do or don't want to try something new. For those who don't want to try something new, that means they stick to the 3-4 systems they're already familiar with (usually Storyteller, Fading Suns, and, yes, D20 System). In fact, among the people i game with the most, the sure way to have a full table is to offer to run something that nobody's played before.

And, to be absolutely clear, the above has nothing to do with my ideologies on RPGs. I'm mostly talking about other gaming groups, that i have no direct interaction with. These are just observations.