d20 bubble bust?- High Prices, too many books

[woodelf]

And for that matter, I'm waiting to buy WOTC's edition rather than Bastion's or any other company's book on Winter gaming, simply because it will be perceived as more "official" by my D&D group and more accepted without niggling technicalities over poorly playtested rules (not to imply that WOTC is perfectly playtested, mind you). It's not that I want to snub a good 3rd party developer over WOTC; but I have to draw a line, and an "official" product must, by definition, get my support over alternates in a cut-throat world with too many supplements on the same subjects. Same goes for the Complete series; they remain the only prestige class compilations I allow as a DM, with very few exceptions. And truth be told, most of my experiences with 3rd party support have involved big question marks about rules gaffs, errata, poorly conceived and overpowered feats/classes/spells/etc. By and large official books seem to at least nod to balance issues better.

Based on what i hear on these boards, among other places, the WotC books aren't doing much better. I don't understand the "official product must get preferential treatment" line, however. It seems to me the sensible thing to do is to prefer the good product--and you say yourself that that isn't necessarily WotC. And there's really no logic to your position, either--there are plenty of game designers outside of WotC wath as much or more skill and as much or more experience than those who're in WotC. And WotC doesn't use the hordes of playtesters it did prior to D&D3E, does it? So they don't have that advantage.

Anyway, i take the "good until proven otherwise" tack for RPG publishers--i look at everything that, topic-wise, might interest me. You can even disappoint me quite a few times before i'll stop looking at your products. And a whole bunch of disappointments interspersed with some gems won't drive me away, either. In fact, right now i can only think of a very few publishers that i've just plain given up on, and don't even bother checking to see if their new product is any good: WotC, Fast Forward Entertainment, Avalanche Press. There's one other, but i forget the name now--i'd recognize it if i saw one of their products. Oh, and a half-dozen or so really-small press that i'll probably never look at again, but that don't seem to have survived long enough to publish a 2nd product.

I dunno how many like me are out there, but if you're a new company i've never heard of, my reflex response is to take a look at your product, rather than to pass it over. You have to establish a reputation before my reflex can possibly become "pass"--otherwise, i might miss something great.

 

[Mythmere]

Has anyone ever thought of putting the imprint of someone's favorable review on the higher quality products? Lots of other products (look in a grocery store, for example) have endorsements as a "Real" dairy product, for example, to give consumers information from a fairly independent third party. Kosher goods get a special symbol to show that the facilities are periodically inspected by rabbis. Books are NY times bestsellers, or might win a Booker or a Newbury Prize.

I think the d20 market would function a lot more efficiently if a couple of "rating" organizations began allowing publishers to say what awards they have won with their review copies of the material. Example: The Eric Noah five star award. Eric picks ten reviewers who get advance copies sent to them by the game companies. Each reviewer forwards his top two choices to Eric, who has final choice. Consumers will gravitate toward the products that have the awards, especially the products with multiple awards.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

The OGL acts to increase the efficiency of the transmission of ideas in game design. In fact, it increases the efficiency of that transmission almost all the way to 100%. Weird, wonderful things happen as efficiencies approach perfection that can't and don't happen when there is even minor friction in the system.

When a "good idea" appears, that good idea can spread to as many new products in which that idea is appropriate, without any limitation caused by a need for permission, approval, or review. That means that publishers have no good argument for not using such "good ideas" and instead using a "less good" idea of their own invention. Consumers, once educated to this fact, will start to impact the market by either rewarding or punishing publishers (by purchasing or not purchasing) the work they produce based on how well that publisher is maximizing the value of the total shared base of "good ideas".

As I've suggested at the Open Gaming Foundation listserv, Ryan, one of the factors that prevents the OGL from achieving 100% efficiency in spreading good ideas is that Section 7 of the license makes it difficult to cite sources. IMHO, this creates enough friction to cause a number of the problems people have raised in this thread.

Academic cultures have been developing systems for the transmission and refinement of good ideas for centuries. The OGL is a brilliant step towards making gaming a similarly progressive and collaborative enterprise. But it lacks one of the cornerstones of the academic system: the requirement that each published work must directly indicate where its ideas came from.

Wouldn't it be much easier for consumers to determine whether a publisher's product was maximising its use of "good ideas" if a direct citation system made it clear which ideas from prior products were being used? If a student picks up a book about sociology, it's immediately clear whether the evidence cited to support the book's conclusion comes from a reputable source or from Mein Kampf.

JD Wiker of the Game Mechanics is, I believe, in a unique position to speak since the OGC from Swords of our Fathers has been through an unusually wide range of permutations (published as a PDF, reprinted by Wizards, and perhaps soon to be made freely available as part of the unauthorized "Unearthed Arcana SRD"). Here's a quote from my correspondence with him (made public with his permission):

"As the OGL attracts more and more publishers--some of whom are new to the publishing business--the need for a more organized system of accurate attribution would seem obvious. Good ideas deserve recognition, and the current system--where the majority of books are designed by multiple designers, and some of the material is borrowed from other sources under the terms of the OGL--leaves a bit too much room for doubt. I don't think that a paragraph-by-paragraph citation is called for, but a compromise between that and the current system should be explored, and not dismissed outright as unfeasible."​

The SwoRD Project is my attempt to encourage direct citation among publishers and other users of the OGL. By releasing the complete Open Game Content of Behemoth3's initial Horde Books, but doing so in a way that maintains the link to the source (i.e., a one-click hyperlink to our direct sales channel for the Horde Books), we hope to demonstrate the commercial advantages of a direct citation system.

More importantly, however, I think direct citation is vital to the ongoing health of any open community of ideas. Since gaming is the community I love best, I'd like to see it benefit from the techniques that have already been evolved in academics and science. I understand the reasoning behind protecting trademarks and limiting compatibility claims in Section 7, and I don't think a direct citation system requires an immediate revision of the OGL--just the support of key players in the community. I welcome any and all help in promoting and recruiting support for these ideas.

 

[philreed]

While this seems good in theory, in practice there is almost no sharing between publishers.

Not true at all. Green Ronin Publishing's M&M Superlink is a type of sharing between customers as is the "Treasures of Freeport" PDF I recently published (again, Green Ronin). In fact, I'll be publishing a Forbidden Arcana release that ties into Green Ronin's Plot & Poison and another drow PDF that ties into Goodman Games' The Complete Guide to Drow.

There is currently some sharing between publishers and, I suspect, as time goes on we'll see more. It's just going to take some time for the various publishers to start working together.

And none of this even touches instances such as my Possessors release that Bad Axe Games then took and expanded for their own needs. Or several other products already on the market.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Generally speaking a widget which is OGC but whose label is not is what is referred to as "crippled" OGC, because, while you can reuse it, you are forced to rename it, so the reuse is non-obvious, and sources can't easily be tracked.

I'd argue that sources can't easily be tracked even for non-crippled OGC. How many users even know to look in the Section 15 declaration of prior sources, or have the encyclopedic knowledge of existing products required to recognize which widget label goes with which book?

 

[woodelf]

The publisher has to weigh the advantages of a trickle of direct sales against the certainty that he will piss off the retailers, particularly if he offers his product at a discount. It's not worth it to break the retailer>distributor>publisher chain.

If you have reached the point where you are deciding between direct sales to customers and keeping your retailers happy, you're probably past the point where you can afford to stay in business.

I think he meant once the retailer sales have basically died. IOW, pushing discounted direct sales after, say, the 45-day mark. Not discounted sales from day one.

 

[Psion]

There is currently some sharing between publishers and, I suspect, as time goes on we'll see more. It's just going to take some time for the various publishers to start working together.

I'm still at the point where if I notice someone using someone elses material, I point it out in my review. It's still more an exception than a rule. It seems like many authors are insular and perhaps even a little bit prideful, for many of them would rather write their own mechanic from scratch than use someone elses written (and in some cases, tested with publicly available commentary from fans) mechanic.

Witness: The number of different mass combat systems out there.

In all honesty, I find it frustrating because I have many supplements from different companies with different takes on different things, making them ultimately incompatible.

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Psion, I just followed the link in your sig to the Pact System Doc and noticed this section of its legal notice:

Permission to Reference: You may, at your option, include the following text in either marketing materials or a product:“Usable with the The Pact System published by Second World Simulations.”

You may also include, as often as you want, the following text in a product:“The abbreviation, 2WPS, is used for the The Pact System, published by Second World Simulations.”

If you elect to include either of the above references you must also include the following legal text in a reasonably legible font, point size, and color:“Second World Simulations is a trademark of Steven Palmer Peterson.”​

This Permission to Reference is aimed at the compatibility provisions of the OGL Section 7, but a similar permission statement could be used by publishers to allow (and benefit from) a direct citation system under the OGL.

By specifying an abbreviation that can be used for his trademark, Mr. Peterson seems to have been inspired of Wizard's own steps towards encouraging citation without infringing on trademark (i.e., allowing the use of MM or Core Rulebook III). Unfortunately, Wizards hasn't expanded its system as new sources have been added; XPH isn't officially recognized as the abbreviation for Expanded Psionics Handbook, for example, so it's not clear how to refer to the content of that book without encroachment.

Behemoth3's releases will contain a Permission to Reference specifically designed to allow direct source citation. A model document for this purpose will be made available through the SwoRD Project, which will also work to maintain a registry of products which have permitted reference citation.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'm still at the point where if I notice someone using someone elses material, I point it out in my review. It's still more an exception than a rule. It seems like many authors are insular and perhaps even a little bit prideful, for many of them would rather write their own mechanic from scratch than use someone elses written (and in some cases, tested with publicly available commentary from fans) mechanic.

Witness: The number of different mass combat systems out there.

In all honesty, I find it frustrating because I have many supplements from different companies with different takes on different things, making them ultimately incompatible.

I wouldn't say they're completely incompatible. For instance, in one of my own projects, I use the Shaman Class presented in The Primal Codex (Netherland). However, as other Shaman versions have immerged (included GR's Shaman's Handbook and MEG's Hunt: Rise of Evil), I have adopted Spells, Feats, and other materials to expand upon the one I decided to actually use, including using Feats and Prestige Classes to adopt specific abilities that the other two versions have presented and I felt fitting in certain instances.

At the same time, this isn't the be-all of it for me; in another project I am doing, I use GR's Shaman as my base with the other versions adding to it.

Another example are alternate psionics. In my current project, I'm using a re-tooled version of Holistic's Fading Suns d20 Psi System; For a future project, I'm eyeing GR's Psychic's Handbook. I have specific reasons for choosing either for the specific project, and without both of these available, one of these projects would be (in my opinion) less than what it could be (Although my Psychic vs Chaositech idea is generally defunct due to screwy OGC/PI statements in the later, but oh well...).

I guess, while I wouldn't mind seeing more re-use, I tend to think that a total re-use of material (i.e., "Company X made a Shaman so no one else should make a Shaman") would limit the options available both to other publishers as well as the general hobbyist ("X's Shaman works best in this setting, while Y's Shaman works best in that setting.").

 

[Pramas]

Witness: The number of different mass combat systems out there.

Or naval rules. Or shaman and witch core classes.

While I agree with Phil that there are companies and products that do make good use use of OGC, there are a couple of things that work against an escalation of that trend.

1) The very glut of product that thread is talking about. When the d20 thing started, I thought I'd try to pick up every product released so I could see what other companies were doing. That lasted less than a year. There's so many books coming out you can't possibly keep tabs on them all. It could thus very easily be the case that there's OGC that you'd find useful for a particular book, but you don't know it exists.

2) Game designers tend to have a certain amount of pride. They want to be lauded for their own innovations, not patted on the back for reusing someone elses. Many d20 companies were founded by folks who looked at what was out there (both before and after 3E) and said, "I can do better than that!"

3) There's still a fear that if you go too far with OGC use, you'll get crap about it. For example, when I commissioned Skip Williams to write the Advanced Player's Manual, my wish list of features included a mass combat system. I found out at that point that Skip was working on one for Malhavoc already (Cry Havoc). I asked Skip if we he could strip that one down some, since it would seem stupid to have two different systems designed by the same guy in print. Even stripped down, Skip's system is 30,000 words (about 48 pages). I want it in the book, but part of me still fears that when the reviews hit, I'm going to hear about how much space was "wasted" reprinting something that's available in another book. On the other hand, Corwyl: Village of the Wood Elves, uses a lot of OGC and that hasn't been a problem for anyone as near as I can tell (though it's also a much shorter book).