GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

JohnRTroy

Adventurer
I thought their policy on open gaming was on their current website at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome which states, with a bit of editing:

Well, Orcus, that was mostly written when Ryan Dancey and Peter Atkinson was in charge. The people in charge of D&D, Wizards, and Hasbro have changed. I mean, c'mon Orcus, the company that Gygax and Kaye formed have gone through several different iterations. You can't expect the company to always have the same beliefs over the years.

Corporate culture is something that changes from time to time.

The realist in me says that there will be nothing like an "Open" license. Licenses will be issued to specific companies who meet specific terms, and there will be limits on product type, product costs (no 2.00 PDFs flooding the market), number of products per year (no drowning the market in a dozen different sourcebooks inside of three months), general content limits (already discussed), and so on. The only thing which will be different from normal IP licensing is that the license will be either free (to companies which meet the requirements) or *relatively* low cost, and there will likely be no requirement for inspection/approval of products (that costs WOTC money for little gain). They will be able to 'kill' the license for any product or any company at will. There will probably be a clause allowing very limited reuse of the 3x SRD solely for purposes of 'migrating' existing products, though I suspect that will be closely watched. A key reason, publically stated, for holding back things like Druids and Frost Giants is to make the PHB II, MMII, etc, seem more 'core', so I doubt they're going to want to see this undermined by third-party replacements out a year early.

Actually, that sounds like a pretty good license Lizard, and probably something that they should have had with 3rd Edition. I thought the OGL was too much like giving away everything for free, not allowing standards, etc.

Gary Gygax told me in the past that if he was in charge, he would have had a standard license, vetted publishers, and would have had quality control, so you wouldn't have bad product riding on the back of the (hopefully good) primary product. This is how they handle licensing of movie properties, food franchises, etc. And market controls can help kill the glut.

I do think they'll try to avoid getting the player base mad by saying they'd shut down things like somebody's campaign setting he puts on a web site. They probably will have a form of the license one can use to freely distribute but not sell work.

Gamers are fickle. Unless you provide them something they are interested in, they will peel away from the core game over time and will go to other games. There is no way any one company can keep all the D&D gamers continually interested in D&D forever. That is where third parties come in. We offer an endless variety of game options, but with a HUGE IMPORTANT KICK--it is all still D&D! That keeps people invested in the core game longer. That way they still identify themselves as D&D players when time for a new big D&D product comes out or a change to a 5th edition in 8 years. If they have already peeled off to other games, you've likely lost them.

Well, D&D has mutated a lot over time, so much that you have a lot of fans of the 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. And I think WoTC is further pushing older fans away by making so many radical changes, more than we had going from 2e to 3e, especially when you are changing the traditional views of monsters, the planes, the campaign settings, etc. I think that's gonna push off the people more than anything else.

I mean, despite what you say about Necromancer products, there is a significant difference in the D&D assumptions and rules this time around, probably say 5x the change from 3e to 4e than 2e to 3e was. It's gotta be a turnoff, and since your products are aimed at the traditionalists, I doubt it will always seem to be a good fit.

If they dont, then there is fractionalization of the player base. And that hurts when it comes time to put out a product that they want to be successful--say, a 4E MMO or a new edition. This issue isnt just about third party publishers. It is about making a move to find a way to keep people playing D&D longer and thus ensuring the lifelong value of the D&D brand.

Any business manager should see that plain as the nose on their face.

To be honest Orcus, If they were so concerned about the fractionalization, they would not have created a new edition so quickly, or made the radical changes they did both to the game system and the shared mythology of the D&D settings. They would preserve traditionalism and not have the desire to do things like radically alter campaign worlds, use Greyhawk names without their prior history, etc. They've decided to go in a more radical approach this time, which would obviously fractionalize the player-base. They could have learned the lessons of what happened when D&D changed twice before, some people stuck with the older system. The key thing is probably whether or not they are calculating if the new blood will make the old guard obsolete.

I think many of the other publishers have prepared for this. Monte released Arcana Evolved, Green Ronin has True 20, Pathfinder's releasing their own book. Many of the third parties realized that the best thing to do is control their own work and released their own systems--while simulateously building it from the base of 3e the OGL allowed them to do--which have given them a loyal following.

I fear because you didn't do this Orcus, and the worst happens (which I don't think it will), guys like you and Goodman Games would be the ones most hurt. Although that would be really sad since you guys are the kind of publishers they originally wanted with the 3e license.

I think they'll allow somebody to license their products for adventures--I hope! I agree that 4e isn't "inevitable", I think there's gonna be a significant amount of people who say "no" this time around, because of the changes. Not allowing third parties to publish for the game just exacerbates the problems.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

CaptainChaos

First Post
Orcus said:
So Wizards actually needs the third party pubs both to help bridge current players now and to keep those players with 4E longer and avoid peel off by providing those many alternate ways to play that is still D&D.

Hey, I agree with you, but it's pretty clear from its actions that WotC does not. You know what would have been a really effective way of helping transition current players to 4E? To rally the good third party publishers behind it. It seems crazy to me that WotC did not approach you guys, Green Ronin, Paizo, and FFG at least and pull you into the 4E marketing effort by giving you early access to the rules. Instead they've kept everyone at arm's length, then made promises that they haven't kept. Now Paizo has gone their own way and others may follow. WotC has no one but blame but WotC for that.
 

Oldtimer

Great Old One
Publisher
JohnRTroy said:
I thought the OGL was too much like giving away everything for free, not allowing standards, etc.

Gary Gygax told me in the past that if he was in charge, he would have had a standard license, vetted publishers, and would have had quality control, so you wouldn't have bad product riding on the back of the (hopefully good) primary product. This is how they handle licensing of movie properties, food franchises, etc. And market controls can help kill the glut.
I'm sorry John, but - to be absolutely honest - that only shows that both you and Gary embraced the wisdom of the past, while Ryan was a visionary who looked to the future. Tighter control won't win you a huge market share.

Putting D&D at the centre of Open Gaming was a bold and brilliant move. Maybe the most brilliant move in the history and future of D&D.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I actually think D&D and WotC will go the way you're advocating - and lose most of what was gained the last eight years.
 

xechnao

First Post
Oldtimer said:
Putting D&D at the centre of Open Gaming was a bold and brilliant move. Maybe the most brilliant move in the history and future of D&D.

I care more about the future of RPGs than D&D. Yes, IMO people should start to care more about the RPGs and less about the D&D. Publishers should start to think about this. And its not that desperate, is it? What Wotc is attempting with DDI or Gleemax, if it turns out successful has to convince the rest of publishers to join their forces and offer a competitive alternative while at the same time promoting their own products. And of course they should be offering to other vendors their services -at some fee of course. Something like drivethrurpg but with its own free forum, virtual table and RPG magazine.
 

JohnRTroy

Adventurer
Oldtimer said:
I'm sorry John, but - to be absolutely honest - that only shows that both you and Gary embraced the wisdom of the past, while Ryan was a visionary who looked to the future. Tighter control won't win you a huge market share.

It actually remains to be seen whether or not it was "visionary", and wisdom actually comes with experience. I actually think history has yet to be written.

A lot of the "visionary viewpoints" turn out to be wrong in the future. Remember all the people who thought "dot com" would be the way of the future and all the "old stores" would be eliminated, all the middlemen would be eliminated, etc.

I think the OGL might be fun for the consumers of property, but if the OGL turns out to make D&D something you get "for free" (which the OGL does), and allows anybody to enter and horn in on D&D and release anything anybody else creates for free, I think it ultimately hurts rather than help the brand, and hurt quality.

Or, in other words, as Ted Rall put it oh-so-eloquently (responding to writings that "the future of content is "free"):

tr080324.gif
 

Goblinoid Games

First Post
You know I think one other thing should be said. This whole open gaming issue does not equate to "people who support open gaming = good", and "people (or companies) who do not support open gaming = bad." If WoTC sees the D&D brand going in another direction, that is their prerogative.

Although it would be disappointing to many people if the open gaming tradition were not carried on by WoTC, it will be carried on nonetheless. The OGL is out there thriving fine on its own at this point. WoTC hasn't released anything new as OGC in how long? So it doesn't matter. It will carry on just fine and I think great things will still come of it.
 

Oldtimer

Great Old One
Publisher
JohnRTroy said:
It actually remains to be seen whether or not it was "visionary", and wisdom actually comes with experience. I actually think history has yet to be written.
No, the last eight years have shown that it was indeed visionary. That history is already written.

And past experience doesn't always foster useful wisdom. But I know we have very different views on this. However, just because some people were more hot air than visionaries, doesn't mean that every new idea is wrong.

Still, I don't think anything is gained by you and me re-hashing the same old arguments.
 

Dark Mistress

First Post
I have to say making 3e OGL is what revived DnD after T$R and 2e. The 3rd party publishers filled the stores with ready made adventures in far greater number than was needed and WotC would never have been able to keep up with demand on their own. They keep people playing DnD longer because of options. Even games like True20 and Conan helped DnD. They are still D20 still the same basic rules, it is far easier for a change of pace of play one of those with out learning a whole new set of rules. Plus many DnD products could be more easily adapted and used with those games, because the basic core rules are similar.

I don't believe WotC would be stupid enough to not release the GSL or limit it as much as some people have posted. They would create bad blood with a small but vocal minority of their fan base and worse do the same with all those 3rd party companies. Who would then be forced to either make their own system or more likely jump in with Paizo and make Pathfinder RPG and support it. Then they really would directly compete against DnD.

No even if worse case happen I still don't see 4e not being a success. But I think the cut in sales if all 3rd party publishers supported another game system would be noticed and further more I think Orcus aka Clark is right. It would have it's biggest impact in the future when 5e comes out. I think the number of people still playing 4e at that time would be a much smaller number than those that was playing 3e when 4e was announced.

I just can't believe WotC would do this, I can't believe the suits at Hasbro could be that short sighted and blind to the market and not listen to those in charge of WotC that know what they are doing.

I won't say it can't happen only that I would be shocked if it did.
 

Orcus

First Post
I know. I just talked to Stewart Wieck from White Wolf just a few minutes ago. I was recounting some of the stuff here with him. My worry that someone at Wizards might be too shortsighted to see the value to Wizards of open gaming.

Here is what Stewart Wieck, the president of WW, the primary competitor of D&D said:

Clark: "I dont know why anyone who had any experience with 3E and the OGL would think it was bad for Wizards. I think it kept people playing D&D rather than peeling off to other systems."

Stew: "Of course it did! All the freakin' companies in the industry put their time into 3e books instead of new systems!"

That was from an email, from Wizard's primary competitor at the time. It doesnt get any more clear than that.

Open gaming takes competitors and makes them supporters. And it keeps people playing D&D instead of other systems. And it keeps competitors making D&D products instead of other systems.

Wizards, read your own findings! Study your own market research!

Clark
 

DM_Jeff

Explorer
Orcus said:
I dont know why on earth you would say all those things on your website about supporting open gaming and all the valid reasons for it and then not back them up.

Because that was Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey, talking there, good sir.

-DM Jeff
 

Remove ads

Top