GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[2WS-Steve]

As the market leader I always thought the benefits for WotC of having fairly compatible game stuff out there outweighed the numbers lost to those who only went for the third party niche games exclusively.

The losses to WotC here are people starting and ending with these 3rd party complete in themselves d20 games or people who try a 3rd party variant like True20 and never go back to WotC D&D stuff (assuming they would not have moved instead to a completely different nond20 system like GURPS, WoD, etc.)

The original belief was actually that all RPG stuff out there, including incompatible systems, helps drive the market leader's sales -- that's it's good for the market leader if there are smaller companies out there servicing the niche RPGers and keeping them playing RPGs rather than switching to video games or hanging out in pubs.

 

[Oldtimer]

That's a good point I hadn't really considered either. Perhaps cutting off the competing games that piggyback on D&D is shortsighted as well?

I really believe it is. That is as shortsighted as cutting of all third party products would be.

Since the OGL is not going to be used for 4e, sights seems to have shortened.

 

[Orcus]

I really believe it is. That is as shortsighted as cutting of all third party products would be.

Since the OGL is not going to be used for 4e, sights seems to have shortened.

I'm not sure about that--that "sights have shortened." Just because the OGL isnt being used doesnt mean they are short sighted. The OGL could use improvements, from everyone's standpoint. Granted, WotC will make changes that address the problems from their stanpoint, not necessarily from our standpoint. But I think WotC is just reacting to the way the OGL worked for 3E--some stuff worked great, some didnt--and they are making appropriate changes based on those things. The big issue is uncertainty. I know what the OGL lets me do from a product standpoint. But I dont know what the GSL will let me do. That, in my view, is the big problem. Until that question is answered, its hard for us to go forward as publishers.

Though I do agree that cutting off all third party support would be short sighted.

My discussions with Scott and Linae and others indicate that they want to help the third party publishers. They get it.

 

[Henry]

Given the fact that there will be competing systems no matter what, forcing those systems to be less compatible might be costing WotC in the long run?

This was Ryan Dancey's original supposition, one of the reasons why he pushed for the OGL. If the theory is "all roads lead to Rome", then the idea of making Interstates to replace meandering country roads is a sound one. I know from my personal experience, d20 games of all stripes (from Mutants and Masterminds, to Grim Tales, to Spycraft, to d20 Modern) kept us from playing other game systems out there, like Shadowrun, Unknown Armies, etc. because we were too busy playing games similar enough to not bother with a big learning curve. When were weren't playing D&D, we were playing another d20 game; the non d20 games we DID play had such dirt-simple mechanics that we didn't spend much time learning, like Feng Shui, for instance.

IMO, Network Externalities was a lot more effective under the OGL than people are willing to give it credit for.

In other news, I, too, will be glad to see what the final license of the GSL contains.

 

[Oldtimer]

I'm not sure about that--that "sights have shortened." Just because the OGL isnt being used doesnt mean they are short sighted. The OGL could use improvements, from everyone's standpoint. Granted, WotC will make changes that address the problems from their stanpoint, not necessarily from our standpoint. But I think WotC is just reacting to the way the OGL worked for 3E--some stuff worked great, some didnt--and they are making appropriate changes based on those things. The big issue is uncertainty. I know what the OGL lets me do from a product standpoint. But I dont know what the GSL will let me do. That, in my view, is the big problem. Until that question is answered, its hard for us to go forward as publishers.

Though I do agree that cutting off all third party support would be short sighted.

My discussions with Scott and Linae and others indicate that they want to help the third party publishers. They get it.

I have no doubt that Scott and Linae care about third party publishers - no doubt whatsoever.

And of course we are just guessing how the GSL will differ from the OGL, but the feeling I get is that WotC considers "compatible" game systems (ie Conan, True20, M&M, et al) as an undesirable effect of the OGL. I'm guessing that the GSL will not allow for that. And I would call that a slightly reduced sight, at least.

 

[Admiral Caine]

And of course we are just guessing how the GSL will differ from the OGL, but the feeling I get is that WotC considers "compatible" game systems (ie Conan, True20, M&M, et al) as an undesirable effect of the OGL. I'm guessing that the GSL will not allow for that. And I would call that a slightly reduced sight, at least.

Though as a minor counterpoint, we don't know how much of that will be due to WOTC's insistence, and how much of it will be due to their parent company. That doesn't change your point, but it does shift the emphasis.

And, say it is straight from WOTC, just to explore that possibility. It does make a certain amount of business sense. Third parties who create fantasy campaign settings create a 'sales synergy' with WOTC in terms of the Core Books. Fantasy products convert the fan base and help sell Core Books, and everybody wins in that scenario

M&M does not.

But then M&M is not 'ruined' because of this either. They still have the OGL to fall back on and a path forward. I haven't been to the Atomic Think Tank lately, but I imagine those folks are doing just fine.

 

[Oldtimer]

Though as a minor counterpoint, we don't know how much of that will be due to WOTC's insistence, and how much of it will be due to their parent company. That doesn't change your point, but it does shift the emphasis.

True, it does. It might be that Hasbro has shorter sights than WotC.

And, say it is straight from WOTC, just to explore that possibility. It does make a certain amount of business sense. Third parties who create fantasy campaign settings create a 'sales synergy' with WOTC in terms of the Core Books. Fantasy products convert the fan base and help sell Core Books, and everybody wins in that scenario

M&M does not.

Here is where the disagreement lies. I would contend that M&M does more for D&D than, for example, WoD. There will always be other RPGs out there. The more simliar they are to D&D, the better for D&D.

It is more obvious that a fantasy campaign for D&D helps, but I still think that another fantasy RPG built on D&D rules help more than one which is not.

 

[Ranger REG]

True, it does. It might be that Hasbro has shorter sights than WotC.

Here is where the disagreement lies. I would contend that M&M does more for D&D than, for example, WoD. There will always be other RPGs out there. The more similar...

...or familiar...

...they are to D&D, the better for D&D.

It is more obvious that a fantasy campaign for D&D helps, but I still think that another fantasy RPG built on D&D rules help more than one which is not.

Unfortunately, WotC covets the fantasy RPG field. They'd rather you make setting books than competing rulebooks.

 

[Mike_Lescault]

Hi All,

I haven't forgotten about the questions. I chatted with people about it internally to see what information we could provide, and while I could give you some quoted answers right now, they'd be kinda lame because there are still so many unanswered questions.

I'm going to be out of the office for the next week or so, but when I am back, we'll hopefully have more information available so we can give some better answers.

Thanks,
-Mike

 

[Henry]

I'm going to be out of the office for the next week or so, but when I am back, we'll hopefully have more information available so we can give some better answers.

Thanks, Mike. We appreciate the drop-in. We really do think the world of you guys, even if it occasionally doesn't sound like it.