GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Atlatl Jones]

I feel very strongly that if the corperate types get control of the CREATIVE direction of WoTC then D&D is DOOMED. I see the GSL as a kind of acid test of who is really in control of the direction of D&D.

The thing is, business types have always had control of the creative direction. Take a look at what happened the last time businessmen abdicated control of D&D, during the last few days of TSR. Designers created all sorts of neat books that they wanted to create, but which no one actually bought in any numbers, resulting in TSR splitting is own market and going bankrupt. Companies who're doing this as more than just a hobby should make books that people actually want to buy, which will make them profits. In basic terms, the goal of making profits just means companies want to sell what people actually want to buy.

Take Games Workshop for example. They are a very successful company that makes business decisions that make perfect business sense, they just end up destroying whole swaves of the RPG market. They have just completely cut the most successful RPG of this year (at least in the UK it was outselling D&D 4:1) Dark Heresy because it doesn't fit in with their short-term business plans anymore.

The Games Workshop example has nothing to do with long term vs. short term planning. It was the result of differences of scale. RPGs are a fairly miniscule market. No matter how much a RPG sells compared to other RPGs, its profits are just rounding error compared to the profits of novels and minis.

While I don't like that GW dropped dark heresy, it was a sound thing for them to do in the long term.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I'm going to have to disagree with it being an "open movement". If the OGL was so successful, I think we'd see the biggest publishers adapt to it.
[snip]
Mongoose is interesting,

Mongoose is also the RPG #3 publisher. So they're one of the "biggest publishers". The way they're marketting Traveller and Battlefield Evolution, they are trying to appeal to a larger audiance then either game traditionally had. I believe they will succeed. RuneQuest, IMO, was their test bed. They did some good work, but from what I've seen of the way they're handling Traveller, they're really getting it "right" this time.

EDIT:

Mongoose is probably trying to increase sales of those games by increasing third-party support.

Well... yea.... (Not to sound condescending). This is the very reason why Wizards tried open gaming in the first place. All the champions of open gaming back around the turn of the century freely and openly admitted that they were doing this to increase sales of Wizards D&D products. End of story. So, yes, that is exactly why Mongoose and Paizo and Green Ronin others are doing it. More support there is for a game, the more likely people will play it.

 

[mxyzplk]

Hi All,

They dragged me, kicking and screaming, back from vacation and I wanted to follow up on this issue as promised. Obviously, Linae's a key person working on this stuff and her insight into the area will forever dwarf what little informaton and undestanding I can track down, but with that said, I have a quote from Liz Schuh, D&D Publishing Brand Director.

“We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”

I'll make sure additional informaton is passed on when I receive it, but for now this is the best we can do for a quote.

Thanks,
-Mike

You realize that every step y'all take backwards from openness is inviting you to get burned, as with Pathfinder. If you had remained committed to openness and had gotten the new info out in a timely manner to third parties, they wouldn't be rebelling now.

The OGL was largely single-handedly responsible for reviving the RPG industry overall and it and 3e took D&D from a bankrupt and largely irrelevant position back to its current state of RPG primacy and pop-culture relevancy.

Let me note something about real world economics. A healthy market sector means more for everyone. My IRL company has been posting record revenues for many consecutive quarters. Our stock took a big hit lately. Why? Because our major competitors posted big losses. This cast the entire sector in a bad light. Doing well in a bad sector isn't any better than doing poorly in a good sector. (Industry economics are different from "small company" economics and you have to make the adjustment.) The naive businessman says "us doing well is good, our competitors going well is bad." The smart businessman knows that's not true. Rent some MBAs if you need to, but I think it's high time to look at this form a big economic picture point of view. My company (hardware/software manufacturer) actively releases "free" standards and spends money to get the rest of the industry on board, because that gets more support, more product, more activity, and more customers to the standard. Y'all got that exact benefit out of 3e and the OGL.

Competition never drove anyone out of business unless they were a) a small storefront or b) sucked and deserved it. Competition is good. Read a business book published in the last decade before making any more GSL "decisions."

I don't think the problem is "putting business over creative direction," it's having improperly experienced business folks.

 

[Bacris]

You ain't kidding, and that number is only growing, not shrinking. Current and near future open games (that I know of):

Don't forget:
True20
Mutants & Masterminds

Both are open, both have ways to indicate compatibility, and it was announced that True20 is going to go even more "open" in May.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The OGL was largely single-handedly responsible for reviving the RPG industry overall and it and 3e took D&D from a bankrupt and largely irrelevant position back to its current state of RPG primacy and pop-culture relevancy.

Maybe it was, oh, I dunno, the new rules that did it, or the fact that WoTC bought out TSR's debt? I think there's a little too much emphasis on the OGL being the key factor that saved the industry.

My company (hardware/software manufacturer) actively releases "free" standards and spends money to get the rest of the industry on board, because that gets more support, more product, more activity, and more customers to the standard. Y'all got that exact benefit out of 3e and the OGL.

What's good for a software industry might not be good for the rest of industry. I can see open source working for software because it's such a complex industry and most software is developed in-house for specific tasks.

Case in point. Guardians of Order released Big Eyes Small Mouth, with rules that were completely OGLed. However, this turned out to be their downfall, as people gathered those rules and released them for free.

WoTC has always been in the primary process of selling PHBs and other core books. Supplements and campaign settings like FR do a lot less business than the core books. The free SRD hurt that potential market. At the very least, I can see them removing a totally unrestricted OGL from the market.

 

[arscott]

Mongoose is probably trying to increase sales of those games by increasing third-party support.

So, the exact same thing that WotC did with the OGL?

I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that Open Gaming works better for some games than for others. D&D is defined by it's theme, while WoD is defined by it's specific setting. Unless WW wants to make a license that lets other companies muck about with their Product Identity, then there's not much of a point.

 

[mxyzplk]

Maybe it was, oh, I dunno, the new rules that did it, or the fact that WoTC bought out TSR's debt? I think there's a little too much emphasis on the OGL being the key factor that saved the industry.

Hmmm, well that wouldn't be the view of the person who architected the revival of D&D, Ryan Dancey. http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/the-good-old-days/

What's good for a software industry might not be good for the rest of industry. I can see open source working for software because it's such a complex industry and most software is developed in-house for specific tasks.

But hardware and software are the "next best" analogy for a game system - complex systems that need to interoperate. It's not just software; hardware standards are the same deal. And I have no idea where "most software is developed in-house for specific tasks" comes from - anyway, I'm speaking specifically about product-focused software. From ANSI C to the PCI bus to your new cell phone actually working, standards definitely make the computer world go around.

It's the same thing with RPG products. You can buy a novel and read it, and it may be tied into some trilogy story arc but it doesn't require anything else to use. RPG products are exactly like software - they require specific things to use. It is this interoperability that Dancey so brilliantly deduced and built a new model on.

 

[Lizard]

Case in point. Guardians of Order released Big Eyes Small Mouth, with rules that were completely OGLed. However, this turned out to be their downfall, as people gathered those rules and released them for free.
.

Uhm...no.

*GOO* released them for free. No other publisher did. (And it was Tri-Stat DX, not BESM, unless you're counting BESM D20, a fairly minor game. And since GOO was printing up Tri-Stat DX rules and selling them for rock-bottom, cost or less, prices, there wasn't really much room for anyone else to jump in...)

Currency issues (the weak dollar vs. the Canadian dollar), personal factors, and the general decline of the gaming industry is what killed GOO.

Can you find me a quote from anyone involved with GOO, who was there at the time, which says, "Damn, we never should have released those rules!"?

Can you point me to the 'other people' who released the rules? (Reposting the SRD -- something GOO made, of their own volition, freely available online, doesn't count.)

 

[Cergorach]

I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that Open Gaming works better for some games than for others. D&D is defined by it's theme, while WoD is defined by it's specific setting. Unless WW wants to make a license that lets other companies muck about with their Product Identity, then there's not much of a point.

The StoryTeller system is also very good and can be used for just about everything, as WW has already demonstrated.

Fantasy => Exalted
SciFi => Trinity
Super Hero => Abberant
Pulp => Adventure
Modern => World of Darness / Hunter
Horror => Vampire / Werewolf / Mage / Demon / etc.
Medieval => Vampire Dark Ages
Victorian => Vampire Victorian Age
Crusades => Mage the Sorcerror Crusades
Wild West => Werewolf The Wild West
Wuxia => Kindred of the East

Probably forgot a few, but you get the idea ;-) If WW were to release the Storyteller system as OGL, I would be all over it, and many with me. One of WW gaming products greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses is the meta plot, it attracts a lot of gamers, but also repels a lot of them. I think you could do an excellent fantasy RPG with the ST system that isn't high fantasy, or heavly intertwined with the WoD.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, I shouldn't have assumed people were talking about jumping to a closed system. That was a lapse on my part, and I apologize.

That said...

The notion that the OGL/GSL issue is a divide between "creative types" and "corporate types" is absurd. The D&D team at WotC are game designers and game players. Whether or not the legal team decides to make D&D open doesn't in any way change the direction of the D&D game itself.

Again, I support the OGL. I want 4E to be open. And I respect that, for some people, if it's not, that's a big enough issue not to switch. But it's a big enough issue on its own; let's not go making it a bigger deal than it actually is. And what it's not is the end of D&D as we know it, or a return to the failed policies of TSR, no matter which way the decision finally goes. It would be bad for D&D and for the industry. But it wouldn't be fatal.