Has 3rd Party Material Helped (!!!) WotC ?

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

I'm beginning to think that the glut (IMO) of D&D material out there has only helped WotC strengthen its D&D sales, rather than weaken it via competition. The reason? So much material that the only way for a DM to keep a handle on it all is to default allowable material to WotC material only.

Hmmm. I call fault with your logic! If there was no OGL, people would still be using "WotC material only", right?

BUT: If I were a bit more paranoid, perhaps one could say that the most direct way WotC has benefited from the OGL arrangement is by borrowing the best concepts and ideas from 3rd party publishers and repackaging them into their later releases to wider audiences beyond what 3rd party products could reach . Or maybe every single instance of recognition of similar ideas after 3rd party releases are all just - coincidences.

 

[KB9JMQ]

For my collection I tend to stick to WOTC but I have lots of third party books and PDFs.
But I have no problem with a player purchasing a third party book to add something to the game as long as it fits the game we are playing.

 

[delericho]

Or maybe every single instance of recognition of similar ideas after 3rd party releases are all just - coincidences.

My understanding of the OGL and d20 licenses was that they legally had to be: if open material is reused, it cannot be 'closed' in the reused form. Since the only WotC books that have any open content are the Monster Manual II (in the form of two monsters) and Unearthed Arcana (essentially the whole book), no other book can contain reused material.

Of course, Wizards of the Coast might try to claim that, as the owners of the d20 license, they can do whatever they want with it, but I was reasonably sure that there were a lot of discussions about this in '99, with WotC promising that the license was phrased in such a way that they couldn't do that. I think they're much more likely to just claim it as a case of independent invention.

Of course, it's entirely irrelevant - no-one actually has the resources to test the issue in court.

 

[Staffan]

To be honest, it's hard for to wrap my head around the fact that some DMs allow or disallow crunchy elements on a book by book basis.

I do a rough cut on a book-by-book basis, and then further cut out options within those books. I have to have some way of limiting things, since we don't play at my place and I already have WAY too many things to carry to the game.

 

[Campbell]

I do a rough cut on a book-by-book basis, and then further cut out options within those books. I have to have some way of limiting things, since we don't play at my place and I already have WAY too many things to carry to the game.

I guess I was railing against folks who for instance allow some of the worst parts of the Book of Exalted Deeds at their game table, but flat out refuse to look elsewhere for more reasonable content.

 

[Psion]

My understanding of the OGL and d20 licenses was that they legally had to be: if open material is reused, it cannot be 'closed' in the reused form. Since the only WotC books that have any open content are the Monster Manual II (in the form of two monsters) and Unearthed Arcana (essentially the whole book), no other book can contain reused material.

Of course, Wizards of the Coast might try to claim that, as the owners of the d20 license, they can do whatever they want with it, but I was reasonably sure that there were a lot of discussions about this in '99, with WotC promising that the license was phrased in such a way that they couldn't do that. I think they're much more likely to just claim it as a case of independent invention.

Probably neither. I have yet to see any mechanics in closed WotC products that resemble some OGC elsewhere to the level you could claim that a copyright violation had occurred.

But remember, you can't copyright ideas. Or for that matter, game mechanics. If WotC thinks that a certain product someone else produces would turn over worthwhile sales with their brand on it, they are free to do so.

That said, I don't think BFG is on to something. The lead time on WotC products is immense, and they aren't in the habit of announcing them long before they go to print. If you hear a similar product by wizards being announced after a similar product by another company has been announced, it probably IS safe to say it is a coincidence in most cases.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It's the same here. I've passed on the last several WotC books, and the trend looks to continue.

I'd say that third party materials have been beneficial to the spirit of D&D, if not the name. There've been many third party books that do not require the core books to play. Mongoose's Conan and Lone Wolf books, Castles & Crusades, Blue Rose.

Not in the least. Frankly, I'm about ready to abondon the Wizards books and just use the superior third party books for my game.

 

[Psion]

I guess I was railing against folks who for instance allow some of the worst parts of the Book of Exalted Deeds at their game table, but flat out refuse to look elsewhere for more reasonable content.

I hear you there.

Anscestral weapon - yes
Nymph's kiss - no
Vow of poverty - way no.


Actually, BoED was one of the first WotC books I saw that had arcane classes that didn't look like Christmas. But alas, other parts let me down.

 

[Pants]

I guess I was railing against folks who for instance allow some of the worst parts of the Book of Exalted Deeds at their game table, but flat out refuse to look elsewhere for more reasonable content.

If it works for them, why should you care? You aren't playing in their game are you?

I could see that being the logical thing to do if the person was complaining that the BoED was ruining their game, but really... tastes vary.

 

[Endur]

Of Course

Of course 3rd party material has helped WOTC sales of D&D products. It always has, even before D20. And D20 has increased sales of the core WOTC products.