Gygax's views on OGL

[MeepoTheMighty]

Is it just me, or is Gary totally out of touch here?

From http://www.silven.com/articles.asp?case=show&id=115

Q1) We know from previous columns with you that you are not a great advocate of open licenses. Before we delve into the details of this lets define your views on this using the OGL as our standard discussion point. Are you against open licenses like the OGL in any form or is it one factor of the licensing model that you think is poor?

It is my opinion in general that an open license is worth every penny paid for it, and returns to the grantor full value for the material offered in the deal.


Q2) WoTC have on many occasions maintained that they went ahead with the OGL to relieve themselves of the all the burden of creating add-ons to the D&D universe so that they could focus on the core products. Is this not in essence a good idea?

If a company cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, then the reasoning is sound. Otherwise, I think it is no more than an excuse to cover an inability to create and produce quality adventure material. If course support material does not have the same profitability as do core books, but the publisher of a game system can certainly manage to generate some income from superior support products, and that is owed to the fans of the game system.


Q3) Now a downside to the OGL is, of course, the mass of mediocre products to hit the marketplace immediately following the release of the license. No doubt this contributes in the short term to a dilution of the brand and a weakening of the market quality. However do you not think that in the long term better products will emerge out of necessity and slowly out compete the poor products, thus reestablishing the strength of the brand AND a larger selection of products for the consumer? Are we not seeing this happen today on a small scale?

I totally disagree with the basic assumption in this question. Why should it have been necessary initially to flood the marketplace with poor products? What guarantee of quality is the D20 logo on future products? There is no quality control involved in regards either the D20 or OGL, so the marks generally only identify material that can be used with whatever new version of the D&D game is current. Finally, what value is there in having a large selection of support material of varying, mostly questionable quality? Quantity of this sort is not valuable in regards to support products, and there is no way for quality to be assured.


Q4) What are your views on WoTC redefining the license after its release to shut out certain types of content and is this is a manifestation of one of the weaknesses in open licenses like the OGL?


There's little for me to say about this. I concur that the license grants undue license, and the lack of control WotC is willing and able to exercise over content is evident. That they put in some minimal decency standards is refreshing in my view.

Had WotC retained control over their IP, and issued only specific licenses to qualifies publishers for development and production of support material, quality would be assured. The D&D logo would have gained further recognition by appearing on such products, and thus all concerned, consumers included, would have benefited.

The excuse that WotC could not afford to control licensees' product content is not valid. Income from royalties paid for use of the D&D game material and logo would surely pay the cost for employees hired to review manuscript material submitted for approval prior to publishing.


Q5) You have mentioned on numerous occasions that WoTC is not taking its responsibility to the industry when it comes to widening the appeal of the RPG game genre and bringing in new gamers. Does the presence of the OGL at all assist WoTC in making steps towards this goal?

No. All the OGL does is to allow virtually any sort of design to utilize D&D game material. The result might develop products that appeal to existing game enthusiasts, but it does virtually nothing in regards to bringing in new players.


Q6) If you would have been present at WoTC when the decision was made to create an open license, how would you have gone about it, assuming that not doing it was not an option.

I would have resigned my position with the company rather than seeing the OGL come into being.


Q7) Lastly, lets confront the reality of the existence of the OGL. Its here and it looks like its going to stay. We have seen some benefits and downsides to its existence. What can we [the industry] do now with the lessons learned so far to ensure that the OGL grows into something that is a benefit to the D&D and d20 genre over the years to come?

Frankly, the D20 and OGL licenses are what they are, and in my opinion they have no real benefit to WotC, and thus they do not benefit the D&D game system. The concept is flawed, and I do not believe that any amount of time will serve to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

 

[JeffB]

While I don't agree with Gary on every point, I do believe some of his comments have merit.

I suspect that having the company he started and the product he produced stripped away from him (along with later products from another publisher having to be canceled because of his former company), he's probably damn gun-shy about giving up any kind of control general. Can't say I blame him in that regard.

 

[Janx]

From the interview, one can see that Gary is clearly against OGL, and unwilling to even entertain any thoughts as to how he could make it better.

If I recall, Gary was in charge back in the Judges Guild days, thus it was HE that sued the pants off of anyone making products for D&D that wasn't TSR.

So it's no surprise that he still feels the same way. It should also be no surprise that he's not running the company that makes the biggest RPG on the planet. He lost that job, too. So I wouldn't put much stock in his business acumen.


His comment on Q4, getting royalties for the D&D license to pay for staff QA is way off target. This was the precise reason the OGL was created. If WotC charged companies to make D&D products, few would pay. Instead, they'd make their own RPG and sell that. Instead, WotC has tricked them into making D&D content without minimal effort. This is what the RPG industry was doing prior to 2000. We would not likely have Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed or other products, as he wouldn't have been able to afford the royalty costs.

I do see one alternative to the OGL that WotC could have done. And that would have been to "certify" other publishers products. Basically, in order to release a product, the publisher sends a check and a PDF to WotC's "external review" team. Basically a bunch of editors. The check is to pay for the editors (probably contractors). Their job is to review the content for quality, consistency, and cleanliness. If it passes, the publisher gets clear-to-ship and can put the D&D compatible logo on it. If it fails, the publisher has to try again (I assume the editor would tell them why it failed). As a publisher, I'd try to make my product perfect before I sent it to be certified. The cost wouldn't be too bad. An editor might want $40,000 a year. That's $20 an hour. At 2 pages an hour, a 96 page book would take 48 hours, and cost $960 to certify. A real editor could probably provide real stats and I suspect the cost would actually be lower.

Janx

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Nah, I don't think he is completely off base. While overall I think the OGL has been good for the game, I can understand where he is coming from about the lack of control and quality issues. I also cannot say I disagree with the idea that a game company should be able to support its players, even if it requires generating low profit margin items like modules. My impression of what Gygax is saying is that Hasbro/WoTC sold out in order to focus on more profitable areas thinking others would do the less profitable dirty work for them, rather than think about making the best material out there and supporting a fan base for the love of the game. It comes down to business versus passion.

I can't say I'd go so far as to call the OGL a pig's ear, and in the end the OGL certainly benefits me more and a player than if it didn't exist, but I understand how he could feel this way considering his personal ties to the game.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

While I have great respect for Mr. Gygax, I disagree with some of his points. Clearly, he's a big mavin of creative control, which is only understandable as he was instrumental in ushering in a new form of entertainment.

However...

All the OGL does is to allow virtually any sort of design to utilize D&D game material. The result might develop products that appeal to existing game enthusiasts, but it does virtually nothing in regards to bringing in new players

That's a pretty big "All" at the start of the quote. And the ability for DMs to develop and reprint parts of the SRD is phenominal in the era of the internet.

Also, if you look at RPGs in the 80s, a lot of them were essentially D&D compliant anyway. Oh, sure. "Will" might have replaced "Wisdom" and "Charm" would be used instead of "Charisma". You'd have different classes and die-rolling techniques. But converting a lot of those games to D&D wasn't all that hard. Even skill-baesd games like Runequest used familiar attributes. The OGL brings that creative spirit under one roof.

The OGL does indeed do nothing to bring new players into the game. But neither did the non-existance of an OGL (if that makes any sense). Furthermore, the OGL makes it more likely that games will use the same mechanics to bring down the learning curve (although a supported line of D&D-"lite" products is desperatly needed).

But again, I can certainly see why he'd walk if someone told him they wanted to give his brainchild away for free and let other people make money off it.

 

[am181d]

But... But... Gygax's name has appeared in the title of OGL products...

I don't... What does...

Head... can't... contain...

NYGAAHHHGGHhhht

 

[MerakSpielman]

A real editor could probably provide real stats and I suspect the cost would actually be lower.

My company charges customer $70/hour for professional technical editing (note that this is significantly more than the technical editors get paid. Also note that we primarly edit government technical documents, not RPG products, so the pricing might differ in different industries).

Depending on requrements of the customer, the frequency of errors, and the complexity of the text, one can edit anywhere from 10 to 30 pages per hour.

edit, after some calculations: So, a 300 page product, assuming simple, "light" editing, could take 10 hours, or $700 to edit.

 

[The_Gneech]

I suspect that the estimable Col. Pladoh also tends to think of the gaming industry in regards to how it serves the gamer, rather than whether or not any given company makes or loses money. He may believe (and I think it's valid idea) that different, competing game systems = more better game. Instead of having twenty tiny companies doing d20, it would be better to have six strong companies doing six different-but-really-cool games, each one working twice as hard to earn your gaming dollar.

Unfortunately, that's also diametrically opposed to an important real-world factor in gaming, which is "Who the hell has TIME to learn six different games? I barely get two sessions a month in as it is!"

-The Gneech

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Keep in mind that Gary has always been a bit of a control freak where D&D is concerned. I still remember the comment he made over 20 years ago, to the effect that anyone who used house rules might be playing an RPG, but they sure weren't playing D&D.

That said, his concern for quality control has been born out in the market - there's fair more bad stuff than good. There are, however, two contradictory approaches to this. Gary would prefer a Nintendo-like system, where the parent company designs and/or approves everything published for the game. Theoretically, this allows the company to maintain certain minimum standards. Personally, I'd argue that such control is bound to fail at some point, as shown by what happened in 2E and what is currently happening with some of WOTC's more infamous 3E products (ELH, PsiHB).

The other approach is based on competition. In this model, anyone with a few bucks and the necessary effort can get into the market. Theoretically, only the best will survive, leaving gamers with the best material to choose from. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for a market to shake itself out, and d20 is still doing so. The big names in d20 publishing are still putting out a lot of dreck, and the smaller players with some great ideas are having even more trouble getting noticed.

Neither system is perfect, but given a choice, I favor the second approach over the first. Too much of the really good stuff I've purchased the past 3 years came from a non-WOTC publisher for me to want a centrally-controlled system such as Gary seems to be proposing. Still, I acknowledge that his argument has some merit.

 

[Zappo]

As much as it pains me to strongly disagree with Gary, for whom I have the utmost respect... I strongly disagree with Gary on this topic.

* First of all, let's dispel this weird idea that centralized control over a license allows for better quality. TSR hasn't been a guarantee of quality for quite a long time before finally collapsing; lots of TSR stuff (especially from 2E days) is real dung.

* Probably, Gary meant better average quality. Ok, probably TSR stuff on average is better than d20 stuff on average. However, this is entirely irrelevant, because I only buy good stuff! I benefit from having loads of material, who cares about the average. And no, WotC can't give me the loads of material by itself, because...

* TSR killed itself exactly by trying to make support material appealing to everyone.

* I don't agree that WotC owes to the fans the production of quality support material. The fans must have that quality support material, no doubt on this; but whether it comes from WotC or anyone else is irrelevant.

* Certainly the OGL by itself does nothing to bring in new players. Keeping the game closed would do nothing all the same. So, this is entirely irrelevant.

* Most d20 publishers couldn't feed themselves on their books alone. The idea that royalties would suffice to pay for employees doing quality checking could only work if the number of licensees is very small. Also, it would remove single-person operations entirely since they couldn't generate enough revenue to justify the employee-time spent on quality checking them.

* "No real benefit to WotC" automatically implies "no benefit to the D&D system"? And this is the basis of the entire argument against the OGL? Then prove it, please.

* Open licenses have been a benefit for consumers in the software field, and I think this is more fact than opinion.