Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arlough" data-source="post: 5880443" data-attributes="member: 79335">[MENTION=16726]jsaving[/MENTION]I don't disagree with you, but there are a couple of points that I think should be considered as part of this discussion.I realized I rambled on a bit, so I have parsed my statements down to the vital parts, and hidden for the curious all the rambling that went with it.At the beginning of 3rd, WotC was trying to take lessons from TSR's failure.  But they mistook too much specialized material for "Non-Core books aren't worth it."[sblock]I really "found" D&D during AD&D 2nd edition. And my friends and I invested in it heavily.  But we invested most heavily in the core books (and the Player's Option books, as they were an extension of the core in our view) because all the other books were too narrow in scope for the price.  And it seemed like there was a handbook for everything.At one point, I remember joking to my friend (as I was trying to find the correct reference table to resolve a potions issue) that I would buy "The complete book of tables" except I couldn't be sure it wasn't a handbook on furniture.Many of the players I knew suffered handbook overload.  So, we basically formed a communal library where each of us owned some of the books, but nobody owned the same book as another person.  So each of the anciliary books was shared amongst 9 players.  But, each of us had our own copy of the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide.[/sblock]Third edition's OGL was a great first step towards allowing 3rd parties to share the burden as well as promote the core. But because it was reacting to incorrect assumptions it was made too vulnerable to pollution of the brand.[sblock]Third edition was a very different model than other editions in the development of OGL and its early implementation.  The idea was to outsource all those handbooks (effectively) to other companies, thinking that the problem was that the core was the only real profitability, when the glut was a primary problem.  OGL was a great first step toward broadening appeal and focusing on core products, but it also made the glut problem much worse. As much as you had good material come from this, you also had untested and, honestly, bad material being tied to the D&D brand. It was kinda like the '80's was for music. There was a lot of good music that came from then, but that merely a result of statistics playing out. If you only have a one in a hundred shot, but you try it a million times...[/sblock]Fourth tried to turn the breech in the dam into a useful spillway.  But with the overzealous lawyer-ing up of the OGL/GSL/SRD as well as what can be described as schitzophrenic levels of paranoia regarding intellectual property protection, they overly stifled 3rd party contribution.[sblock]Fourth came out with a combo OGL/GSL/SRD that many people, I think I can safely say, loathe.  And, I admit, I am not thrilled about it either.  But, I can see the potential of what they were trying to get.I speculate they wanted to protect the brand, and some of the team thought they could extract additional concessions from the third parties as well, as compensation for all the R&D WotC did on 4e.  But, the OGL/GSL/SRD for 4e was, at the least, poorly marketed and at the worst, poorly executed.  There was push back and retaliation from much of the community.Combined with the rather erratic quality of the WotC products, the DRM panic debacle, and the early failures to deliver on DDi products (that may be continuing to this day, but I dropped my DDi subscription quite a while ago so I can't confirm) and you find that in many minds there is now a taint upon the brand that tends to be blamed on either the deviation from the playstyle of yesteryear, or DDi.[/sblock]So what does this have to do with DDi?  Well, DDi could be something akin to the <s>Android Market</s> Google Play Marketplace as well as a open beta for new material.Third parties wanting to make D&D products could go through DDi. If the product involved new mechanics, it could go to the... I don't know, D&DD (Dungeons and Dragons Dreamatorium) which would basically be a test area for early adopters and the such.  Kinda like the forums here at ENWorld, but with a more focused purpose.  Once the optimizers have had their chance to break the system with the new rules, and game pundits have had their chance expose the inherent flaws, and the creators have used this feedback to refine, etc.  The product could then be sent to a review board (with a reasonable administrative fee) and approved or disapproved.If it is nothing new mechanically, but just an adventure or article or the such, it could go directly to review board (again, with a reasonable fee) to be approved or disapproved.Once the approval is on the product, it could go directly to the DDi Market with Wizards putting their stamp on it saying it is good enough to be tied directly to the D&D brand.  WotC would take a small licence and hosting fee out of each download, with the majority of sale going to the third party.Combine this  with Alaxk Knight of Galt's idea, and I think DDi would be not only viable, but would quickly become indispensable to WotC.P.S.  I've rambled so long that the thread has gotten to my destination already.  More particularly, Alaxk.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification