GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Admiral Caine]

No, the question is, will you go back to being serious about the topic?

I am not the troll here. You crapped in your own thread.

Duly noted and accepted. That's the best I can do.

 

[Orcus]

Clark - how would you characterize the last 7 years of the OGL? (From your own perspecive first, and then from WotC's point of view, do you see it as a success on the whole?) And, if you were in WotC's shoes, how would you frame the OGL/GSL going forward?

That is a great question.

I would call the OGL and Open Gaming in general a huge success from WotC's standpoint. However, I'm not sure that everyone has the point of view as me. And, I will concede, I think there were a few things that werent great from WotC's perspective.

Open Gaming played a role in WotC's objectives, and in my view it is clear beyond any doubt. D&D was re-energized in no small part by the third party companies. They helped WotC achieve this. D&D's market presence increased because of the OGL. Companies often discuss shelf presence for their brand. The massive prolifieration of D&D compatible products made D&D dominate the shelves in retail stores, more so than it would have with just official products. It created a group of desginers and gave them an outlet to show their stuff professionally which WotC has pulled from to great success (see Mearls). It increased the "coolness" factor of WotC by promoting Open Gaming, and that matters. Too often the big guy in the industry, fairly or unfairly, gets a Microsoft label. WotC has that a bit. Gamers are contrarians and underdog supporters. They dont like the big guy. WotC being a part of Open Gaming garnered them some "street cred" and some love. I think it was a brilliant move. Open gamining and the OGL also allowed others to fill in the blanks that D&D didnt have time to fill. I think it also energized roleplaying to a great degree. Our hobby, like it or not, is slipping. It is running the risk of fading to a small core in the face of online and computer and console gaming. That is just the reality. Open gaming got more people involved in D&D. I also think open gaming and third party products pushed quality forward. Previously, D&D competed against itself. It didnt have anything pushing it. But we third party publishers came pretty close to WotC quality. We made some great stuff. And I think that pushed WotC. Granted, they started the bar high with 3E--which was a huge quality and production improvement from prior editions. But look at some of those final 3E products--the "return" and "expedition" adventures and the fiendish codex, etc. Look how great their production values are. I think those were pushed by the way the smaller companies were nipping at their heels. So I think a bit of competition for quality is a good thing (yet all the while pumping D&D).

Frankly, I think D&D would be in a much worse place right now if it werent for the third party support.

A short sighted person would say: every OGL book was a dollar we could have made had we made that book. But that is short sighted. Becuase if you were going to have made the book you would have. You cant talk about hypothetical products you didnt make. Point is, you didnt make that book. So dont get upset if some people make some money for themselves.

I think the few things open gaming did poorly --FROM WOTC'S STANDPOINT-- is allow the creation of competing game systems that are complete themselves and dont require the purchase of WotC products. I think the GSL will address this. I also happen to think it is the prime reason for the GSL not being simply another OGL. Why give rules away that let people start their own alternative games that never in any meaningful way push D&D's brand dominance or sell D&D products? Much of that had to do with the way the OGL and d20 STL worked together, or I should say still worked when apart. Which is why you see important parts of the STL creeping into the core license (the GSL).

In my view, open gaming in general and the OGL particulary, were amazing and positive moves that earned wotc money and continued market dominance.

There were things I would fix: the ability to create stand alone competing game systems (as mentioned above) and the lack of the d20 logo living up to a quality mark and the eventual dilution of the value of that mark. And, it appears, both of those are being addressed by the GSL.

And that in and of itself tells me something. The fact that the GSL seems to be aimed at fixing the very things I am mentioning means, to some degree, that WotC agrees with teh above observations.

Clark

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Everything is a process. I wouldnt be surprised to see a small term here or there tweaked after the publishers look at the GSL and in response to our suggestions.

But whether draft or not, it isnt public till June. So it isnt strange or uncommon for a licensor to keep the license private. That doesnt bother me in any way other than the -hey, i want to see it now!- way. So please lets stop suggesting that there is something inappropriate, improper or unusual about a licensor keeping a license private until finally released. The fact we want to see it, doesnt make it wierd that they arent showing it to us. People are all too ready to indict WotC over this. I'm not a fan of the delay, but the "secret license" isnt the problem.

This thread is about questions for WotC to answer in their own words, not to be translated through 3rd parties. While your explanation is a good one and make sense that does not make it official. I think the question stands and is a good one for them to answer themselves. Otherwise everyone is just debating about more internet speculation (no matter how knowledgeable the source of speculation is).

So to Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault through Dangergirl: Why will the GSL be under NDA until June?

 

[Orcus]

Clark - how would you characterize the last 7 years of the OGL? (From your own perspecive first, and then from WotC's point of view, do you see it as a success on the whole?) And, if you were in WotC's shoes, how would you frame the OGL/GSL going forward?

From my standpoint, that is easy. Necro wouldnt exist without open gaming. I would be here posting this. I wouldnt be working with Paizo. I wouldnt have met Monte and Sue Cook and Erik Mona and and Lisa Stevens and Ryan Dancey and the crew at WotC and Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz and Steve and Stewart Wieck and the WW crew and Bob Bledsaw and all the fans who have become friends and all the many other cool people I have gotten to meet. I wouldnt have gone to multiple GenCons and multiple GAMAs. I wouldnt have won Ennies or been a judge for RPG Superstar or invited to participate in Dungeon's article ranking the all time best adventures. I'd be Clark the gamer. Luckily, I am still Clark the Gamer first and Clark the head of Necro second.

I dont know how long I would have stuck with 3E. I would have --foolishly-- house ruled alot of the stuff I thought I didnt like about 3E and never given it a chance. I'm glad I did, cause there is stuff in 3E I didnt like at first that now I cant imagine going back on. That gives me immense hope for 4E. Just like 3E there will be stuff I think I dont like at first that I'm sure will grow on me and become things I cant do without.

As Clark the head of Necro, I didnt like the delay to my products caused by the switch from 3E to 3.5. As Clark the head of Necro I dont like the delay to my plans caused by the GSL. But I cant blame that on open gaming.

The last seven years have been a rebirth of the golden age of D&D in my view.

 

[DaveMage]

Thanks for the insight, Clark!

 

[Voadam]

I think the few things open gaming did poorly --FROM WOTC'S STANDPOINT-- is allow the creation of competing game systems that are complete themselves and dont require the purchase of WotC products. I think the GSL will address this. I also happen to think it is the prime reason for the GSL not being simply another OGL. Why give rules away that let people start their own alternative games that never in any meaningful way push D&D's brand dominance or sell D&D products? Much of that had to do with the way the OGL and d20 STL worked together, or I should say still worked when apart. Which is why you see important parts of the STL creeping into the core license (the GSL).

In my view, open gaming in general and the OGL particulary, were amazing and positive moves that earned wotc money and continued market dominance.

There were things I would fix: the ability to create stand alone competing game systems (as mentioned above) and the lack of the d20 logo living up to a quality mark and the eventual dilution of the value of that mark. And, it appears, both of those are being addressed by the GSL.

And that in and of itself tells me something. The fact that the GSL seems to be aimed at fixing the very things I am mentioning means, to some degree, that WotC agrees with teh above observations.

Clark

This seems a little wierd to me. I used to buy non-D&D books to use in my D&D games. I used Ars Magica, GURPS, Palladium, MERP, Rolemaster, Earthdawn, WoD, and other stuff as fodder in my D&D games. With the OGL I switched to focusing more on OGL stuff because it was easier to convert than other systems, but I used my Arcana Unearthed and Iron Heroes and Deeds Not Words in my 3e D&D games. I got the Conan Pocket RPG book to use in my D&D game. I got the Wheel of Time complete in itself d20 game by WotC to use in my D&D games. A lot of complete in themselves d20 and OGL books directly supported my D&D gaming.

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.)

 

[Orcus]

This thread is about questions for WotC to answer in their own words, not to be translated through 3rd parties. While your explanation is a good one and make sense that does not make it official. I think the question stands and is a good one for them to answer themselves. Otherwise everyone is just debating about more internet speculation (no matter how knowledgeable the source of speculation is).

So to Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault through Dangergirl: Why will the GSL be under NDA until June?

I'm not trying to give the official answer. I'm just trying to say that there are some things that gamers are trying to project onto publishers as being the problem we are having. Such as the fact that the GSL is under an NDA. I'm just saying that as an actual publisher that is not my issue. I dont care about it and it makes business sense to me.

 

[kenmarable]

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.

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? 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? I don't know, there's a lot of factors. How compatible is it? Would more competing systems exist under the OGL than the hypothetical GSL? Or would they just be more visible?

For something like Malhavoc's alt systems - Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes - it would seem to me that they are compatible enough that those who play Malhavoc's systems would still be likely to buy D&D products for use in their AU/E and IH games. The core books might directly compete, but (fact pulled from Stephen Colbert's gut here) I have a feeling the majority of shelves that have Arcana Evolved sitting on them, also have a Player's Handbook. With these examples, it seems, to me at least, closer to the "Don't complain because you didn't get those dollars, because you didn't make those products" reasoning that Clark mentions. They are close enough to D&D to be pretty much D&D accessories than entirely competing systems.

Shifting now to one of the other big examples is True 20. Now, this seems to be more of a potential worry to WotC. There are more fundamental changes in the system (as well as the strong branding of it as a different system, whereas Malhavoc's always felt more like a different flavor of D&D than an entirely different game). Products are even less compatible, but still usable between systems. However, the difference in compatibility seems to be big enough (especially given that True 20 is set up to handle more than fantasy), that is does appear to be a true direct competitor that doesn't boost D&D much at all.

Then shifting one step further to Mutants and Masterminds. Given the different genre and vast differences in rules, it really isn't compatible with D&D at all. However, to me at least, this seems like less of a direct competitor because it is for an entirely different genre. There is the issue of "gamers only have so much time to play RPGs" and if they are busy playing a supers game, they have less time for D&D. However, I think the simple fact is, some people will want to play a supers game either way, so it's best keeping them happy with a great supers game like M&M. So the small loss of having some play M&M as opposed to D&D is probably offset by the general benefit of keeping them playing RPGs.

So, overall, I think many competing systems aren't a problem. Either they are pretty similar to D&D accessories (Malhavoc's) or they are so separate that they no longer really compete (M&M). But something like True 20, that can hit the same genre, but really is a substantially different game can be a worry for WotC. So, I guess it's all Green Ronin's fault. (Just kidding, I love their systems!) Or, alternatively, if Monte Cook had tried pushing AE as a full on alternate game, bringing even more publishers in on the act, releasing only AE compatible products, and working to market and brand it as less of a "campaign setting with some alternate rules" (after all, it wasn't really much further from core 3.x than Dark Sun was from 2e) and more of a "this is a different game", then that could have been a worry as well.

Apparently, either WotC disagrees with my reasoning above, or the benefit of D&D compatible alternate games was outweighed by the threat of the directly competing True 20's. (Or the short-sighted ones won out on this issue, and they would rather have competing systems have as little compatibility as possible.)

 

[Admiral Caine]

I'm enjoying the continued discussion. I'm chillin' after yesterday's mistake, but I'm still holding out for an answer.

If yesterday's comments gave offense, I do apologize to the WOTC 4Th Edition Development Team. It was a weak moment. Hopefully we can move past it, as there's a lot of people who would like some more information, despite my gaffe.

 

[kenmarable]

Oh, and another question I have (however, it might have been asked already, so sorry if it has) is IF the GSL is incompatible with the OGL, will it address third party to third party content licensing or only WotC to third party licensing?

Although it wasn't used as much as it could have been, one of the great features of the OGL was not just being able to use the SRD's content, but also the sharing of content between publishers. This is probably most evident in adventures (my particular area of interest). Being able to use monsters and templates from a variety of sources is a huge benefit and one that I sincerely hope will still be possible in 4e without each individual publisher developing their own licensing agreements if they want others to use their content.

(Personally, my hope is for the GSL to be compatible with the OGL so that a product can be covered by both.)