Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 4101551" data-attributes="member: 1254">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</blockquote>

Verification