Hypothetical question for 3pp: 5e goes OGL what would you publish?

[Alphastream]

The idea that OGL failed is somewhat silly. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. It created the largest network of RPG players, and those players all know how to play D&D3.x (and/or its variants). Most RPG players who know multiple systems, know some variant of D&D3.x.

The purpose of the OGL was two-fold. Which was foremost can be argued. One was to ensure that D&D would remain forever, because it could always be remade by anyone. A dying TSR could have locked up the game in the hands of lawyers for decades, so Peter Adkison wanted to prevent that possibility. Achieved very nicely. The other purpose was a financial model where, realistically, the operation of D&D would be gutted down to a bare minimum required to maintain the brand and the core books, while the OGL allowed others to create material. After an era where TSR created tons of products that were more expensive than their cover price (and therefore always sold at a loss), this likely seemed like a good idea. Ryan Dancey was still singing the praises of this model a while back. That idea, of third parties creating supplements and driving core book sales, never was attempted. But, I think that it would have fared poorly, for the same reason that WotC isn't making tons of money on 3.5 core books today. It is too easy to use the OGL for true competition (while still benefiting from 3E's material for free) and WotC never gets a penny. At the same time, I don't think any RPG company really wants to gut all of its writers and designers and just maintain a product core. I think it is a terrible plan and very much would doom that company to be completely blind and skill-less in the marketplace.

I suppose the OGL did enhance the network, but the network was already amazingly strong. D&D gross sales in 1981 were $12.9 Million. During the transition from 1E to 2E TSR sold 289,000 PHB's in 1998. When 3E released in 2000 (before any network effect), they sold 300,000 PHs in about 30 days (according to Ryan Dancey). 4E core book pre-orders in 2008 exceeded that, according to accounts.

Similarly, the number of adventures ordered at the start of the Living Forgotten Realms 4E campaign vastly exceeded any previous amount for the 3E Living Greyhawk campaign. 4E's D&D Encounters program (also running 3E and D&D Next) has been a great success. My local store saw more than 300 unique players, just in the first two seasons! Walk the D&D room at a PAX convention and it is filled with players that are aware of D&D as a brand but who are new to it or are only casual players. (The missing piece of the puzzle is making them stay active. I'll argue 3E didn't even get this crowd to the table, let alone try to keep them active.)

So, yeah, a network is important. But the DnD brand has always had a powerful network. I don't find the OGL to be about the network.

 

[Wicht]

Paizo got to start again with - effectively - 3.75; that's why. They weren't trying to continue selling sourcebooks for 3.5, an ecosystem which was becoming tapped out in terms of well-selling content.

I would counter that had more to do with the nature of the content being released then any actual problem people had with the ruleset.

I think if WotC had gone the Pathfinder route, there would have been some grumbling, but they could have got a do-over without actually killing the golden goose.

 

[jmucchiello]

The purpose of the OGL was two-fold. Which was foremost can be argued. One was to ensure that D&D would remain forever, because it could always be remade by anyone. A dying TSR could have locked up the game in the hands of lawyers for decades, so Peter Jackson wanted to prevent that possibility.

Director of the Hobbit? I think you mean Peter Adkinson.

I suppose the OGL did enhance the network, but the network was already amazingly strong.

Yes, it was. The idea was to make it stronger. And not just in base game sales. If you are playing Champions you aren't playing D&D3.x. If you are playing Mutants and Masterminds, you basically are playing D&D3.x. And the next time you go to play a game, you'll probably stick close to a D&D3.x variant even if you don't pick D&D3.x itself as your next game. That's the kind of "lock in" the OGL was supposed to produce.

So, yeah, a network is important. But the DnD brand has always had a powerful network. I don't find the OGL to be about the network.

That's the whole point of lock in. You can't tell people "we are locking you in" as they will rebel. You do it quietly and they don't "find the OGL to be about the network" even though it is.

 

[darjr]

Looks like Jay Little, the creator of Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars game was originally hired by FFG to write and create 4e products but the lack of an OGL helped put a kabosh on that. He goes on to say that lots of other 3pp abandoned 4e for similar reasons. It's in episode 2 of board game university a dice tower podcast at about 14:17 into the podcast
http://boardgameuniversity.libsyn.com/board-game-university-episode-2-jay-little

 

[Morrus]

Director of the Hobbit? I think you mean Peter Adkinson.

Or even Peter Adkison.

 

[Alphastream]

Looks like Jay Little, the creator of Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars game was originally hired by FFG to write and create 4e products but the lack of an OGL helped put a kabosh on that. He goes on to say that lots of other 3pp abandoned 4e for similar reasons. It's in episode 2 of board game university a dice tower podcast at about 14:17 into the podcast
http://boardgameuniversity.libsyn.com/board-game-university-episode-2-jay-little

There is no doubt that the lack of a 4E OGL stopped 3rd parties from writing 4E material. That was likely the point. While an OGL is great for a 3rd party that wants to make money off of another's system, that isn't necessarily good for the industry (due to an over-emphasis/glut on a single game, in turn decreasing innovation) nor is it necessarily good for the game/brand and owning company (WotC and DnD don't seem to have significantly gained from the OGL, especially when one considers the net effect of competition from Paizo).

I have no doubt that many freelancers wanted to transition directly from OGL 3E to the same for 4E. I believe in most respects that they and the hobby are now better off (presuming they are working on the many other exciting systems now finally seeing some attention thanks to Kickstarter and the lull while D&D Next goes through playtesting). Put another way: I would rather see an ex-Wizards or ex-d20 designer work on a Fiasco playset, Numenera project, Legend of the Five Rings sourcebook, new game on Kickstarter, etc. than to see that designer write yet another d20 OGL-based product that very few will see and which does so little for the hobby. I would certainly not want to see a bunch of OGL freelancers put together another DnD (3.90 or 4.50) instead of writing their own game... we don't need more of that. We already have spectacular DnD options.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The biggest argument against the OGL is Paizo itself. The OGL prevented Wizards, for the first time, from just moving onto the next edition. Paizo could use the OGL to take away WotC's customer base, keeping them on an older edition - and without a single penny to WotC. The OGL has further enabled the OSR movement and various other competitive initiatives.

Wizards moved on to the next edition just fine. Some of us, hell, I think a fair number of us just didn't like what Wizards wanted us to move to.

Paizo didnt TAKE away WOTC's customer base. WOTC didn't want that customer base anymore so we left. WOTC was after a simpler streamlined game and newer players. They and their more strident fans made that very clear on their message boards and here at ENWORLD.

Before 4E i'd been on the TSR then WOTC teat. Still as a faithful supporter of the brand for over 20 years at the point of 4E's release in 2008 it was my prerogative NOT to support them anymore if they had a product that I didnt like.

I'm fairly certain had Paizo NOT come along and produced Pathfinder I probably wouldn't be gaming any more. Instead I think I'm spending more money on RPG stuff than I've spent since the early days of 3E. Monthly AP sub, the RPG sub, the occasional cards, Player's Companion and Module purchase. On top of the Card game and mini's and pawns. That's money that's not going to WOTC true but it wouldnt have been going to ANYWAY.

I'm still in the hobby because of the OGL. Because of the OGL I'm still playing/running a game that I enjoy playing/running. Maybe you dont like that fact but I'm fine with it. So from where I'm sitting the OGL is successful. Just not for who you want it to be successful for.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I have no doubt that many freelancers wanted to transition directly from OGL 3E to the same for 4E. I believe in most respects that they and the hobby are now better off (presuming they are working on the many other exciting systems now finally seeing some attention thanks to Kickstarter and the lull while D&D Next goes through playtesting). Put another way: I would rather see an ex-Wizards or ex-d20 designer work on a Fiasco playset, Numenera project, Legend of the Five Rings sourcebook, new game on Kickstarter, etc. than to see that designer write yet another d20 OGL-based product that very few will see and which does so little for the hobby. I would certainly not want to see a bunch of OGL freelancers put together another DnD (3.90 or 4.50) instead of writing their own game... we don't need more of that. We already have spectacular DnD options.

Also about those newer non-OGL D20 games?

I have the disposable income for a game like NUMENERA. At $60 I could afford to have it and get PDF's to run games for a table of people. But I cant afford to spend that money on a game that I'm not gonna play or that I cant drum up interest for. The same for 13th Age (which from what I understand hues a little to close to 4E for my tastes).

So yes, I guess I see why it would be good for WOTC and whatever system they come out with that these designers ARENT supporting OGL and specifically Pathfinder based material. But just because they're out creating their own product even if it's someone like Monte Cook who I supported back in the Malhavoc days, if it's not a system that I'm interested in or can get people to play? My money doesn't go there.

 

[Balesir]

D&D has never existed in a space where it lacked competition. We can read accounts going back to the very beginning and everyone has always been taking competition seriously. For example, the very first adventure was created by a third party, as was the first campaign setting. Those are good examples both of the benefits of competition and the existence of that competition. The competition was continual, from Wee Warriors (involving both competition and partnerships) to Numenera (involving former staff).

The fact that adventures and campaign settings were created by 3rd parties at the beginning actually shows that liberal licensing is a benefit and was, at that time, alive and well. TSR later clamped down on that - as big corporations are (mistakenly, in my view) wont to do.

Wee Warriors and Numenera I actually don't agree are competition for D&D. They are part of the "roleplaying hobby", for sure, but they don't really steal sales from D&D IME. They sweep up those seasoned gamers who want something different from D&D - and who, if they still want D&D as well - will buy both. After all, compared to a hobby like golf, roleplaying is cheap even if you buy three or four systems (or, speaking personally, many more than that!)

This has never been a monopoly, though D&D has been dominant for the majority of its history. What is interesting about Paizo is that it is providing another D&D. As a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "I'm not sure it is good for the industry's top games to be D&D and D&D." Until very recently (thank you, Kickstarter), D&D and Pathfinder were so utterly dominant that all other systems were practically indie games. It wasn't good for the industry, because Paizo and WotC don't greatly benefit from cross-pollination. While they often intermix staff (a good example is Chris Sims, who worked at WotC, then at Paizo, then at WotC), the games are too similar and too rooted to truly inspire one another.

Pathfinder is, indeed, competition for D&D - and, like most competition, I think it's very healthy (even though I have no desire to run Pathfinder or 3.x again, personally).

It is really only the recent arrival of Kickstarter that has created a platform for other games to attract greater notice. Of perhaps equal importance has been D&D Next. By creating a long playtest period it has encouraged many groups to consider options and play other games in addition to just D&D. We see that effect even with Paizo supporters, and it's a very healthy thing.

Kickstarter has been a great boon to creative competition all around, but I think that is a separate and not-really-related issue to the OGL.

All of this is different from saying that an OGL is good because it challenges DnD. I really don't think it does. Wizards sees plenty of different freelancers, both new blood and old d20 contributors. It isn't missing out on seeing new ideas for D&D. Having an OGL wouldn't somehow change 'monopoly status', both because it isn't a monopoly and because if anything a dominant OGL would again hurt gaming by making DnD too big a thing compared to other games. As an example, consider when Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, Star Wars, and many other RPGs all went d20. While there were some good aspects to that, the majority of fans of those games will point to a non-d20 edition as their favorite. And every one of those games moved away from d20 to better represent their game. (Spycraft is doing so with its excellent upcoming third edition).

The OGL challenges the manipulation (or "management", if you will) of D&D, rather than D&D itself, precisely because it means older "editions" can be kept alive by fans. This is what I think is profoundly healthy. The OGL enabled the OSR movement as well as Pathfinder, remember.

You made a number of points about free trade and the like, but they all rest on the concept that an OGL creates competition and new ideas, which I dispute. Especially as compared to a landscape where there is a single D&D with different RPGs rather than A) everyone writing for d20 or B) D&D and Pathfinder dominating. My hope is that D&D can be a great flagship brand for the hobby while other very different compelling RPGs provide a strong competition and influence. Either not having an OGL or having a restrictive OGL would help create that competition.

It's not the "generation of new" part of evolution that I think the OGL supports - it's the "fitness for purpose" part. Good evolution relies on two pillars - mutation (i.e. introduction of new ideas) and natural selection. The creator killing off old designs because they are inconvenient to their business plan is NOT in any sense "natural". Once made, creative products should be left available to thrive or die on their own merits - that is the basis of evolution. And it is what the OGL promotes. The tragedy of 4E will be if, instead of being left available to continue or wither according to its continued popularity it is made unavailable and arbitrarily "killed" to make way for DDN.

I don't buy this at all. 3.5 was dying a certain death when WotC started 4E. We were deep into "Complete Adventuring Companion" type of material. There was practically nothing left to sell, and fans had been clear that they didn't want another minor edition change (they hated the .5). Sales were dropping and there was nothing left to offer gamers. Even books like the Book of Nine Swords were doing poorly, from all accounts. Importantly, the d20 market did nothing to change this. Nothing at all. It was not vastly pumping up the sales of core books at that time to where WotC could sit back. It was not creating amazing innovation that reinvigorated the market. Not at all. Instead, the only thing that reinvigorated the market was Wizards leaving it. Only when fans were faced with having to play a very different edition were they able to be open to accepting a 3.75. And that was only possible due to the OGL.

If 3.x was dying it seems to me it was because WotC wasn't being imaginitive about where they could take it. Paizo have done a bang-up job in that department.

I suppose part of my difference of opinion with you is that I think we really only saw the early days of the OGL with 3.x. It was a seismic shift in the marketplace and was always going to take years - maybe decades - to really play out, IMV. Sure, early on, it caused a majority of the RPG "industry" to hop on its bandwagon, but that was really coming to an end before 4E was announced. The (inevitable) cruft had been mostly winnowed out and the new enterprises were beginning to branch out into developing new systems of their own devising. Kickstarter has accelerated that by reducing massively the risk inherent in such a move, but it was in its initial stages already, AIR. And Storygames and such were initiated on the OGL's watch, besides.

I'm fairly certain had Paizo NOT come along and produced Pathfinder I probably wouldn't be gaming any more. Instead I think I'm spending more money on RPG stuff than I've spent since the early days of 3E. Monthly AP sub, the RPG sub, the occasional cards, Player's Companion and Module purchase. On top of the Card game and mini's and pawns. That's money that's not going to WOTC true but it wouldnt have been going to ANYWAY.

Not a reply to [MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION], but I see this as evidence for what I'm saying above. Competition to D&D doesn't come from other RPGs - it comes from other editions of D&D. That's simply the way it is; other RPGs are played by those who either dislike D&D or are invested enough in the hobby to play (and buy) multiple RPGs. This really is a case of "I disagree with what you (ShinHakkaider) like, but will defend to the death your right to like (and be able to buy) such stuff

 

[Alphastream]

Paizo didnt TAKE away WOTC's customer base. WOTC didn't want that customer base anymore so we left. WOTC was after a simpler streamlined game and newer players.

Every gamer's story and perspective will be different. We will all like different editions to a greater or lesser extent for various reasons. But, I don't at all agree that Wizards was trying to alienate or discard any part of its 3E (or pre-3E) audience. Consider the gamers who hated both 3E and 4E and stuck with 2E. Was Wizards discarding them when it went to 3E? Of course not. For every edition there is a genuine attempt to make the game better. Now, different editions do have different aspects to them. There is no doubt that Wizards was also trying to make the game more approachable for a casual gamer. I fully support that. When I played 3E living campaigns it was absolutely scary to see how our gamer demographic was aging. There was a real danger there that the hobby might shrink very rapidly. Many factors have taken us away from that perilous cliff - certainly the new "geek is cool" mentality we see in the media. But, it has also been due to good branding, marketing, and various RPGs (including 4E) being accessible. There are tons of new, casual, and diverse gamers playing D&D at Encounters and conventions. PAX has for years been an unbelievable change in demographics. I routinely have had tables where one gamer is an old retired gamer trying the game again, one is a casual gamer, and the rest are new. And half that table might be female and half of the overall table is in their 20s. It has taken until this year, but Gen Con is beginning to show signs of this as well.

We will all have different reasons for liking/disliking a game, but 4E's accessibility was an attempt to grow the entire gaming hobby, not to throw you or anyone else out of it.

What the OGL enabled was, for the first time, an option. You could remain on a previous edition and another company could support you, competing with the new edition and winning over those old customers. That's the huge change. When WotC went to 3E, if you didn't like it, you had to choose to just stay on existing material (and create your own) or accept the new edition. Many of us hated a new edition but spent years on it because that was the better option. Support is a big deal (think of how exciting every Paizo release is). My gaming group largely despised 2E, but we all purchased a metric ton of 2E material and freely intermixed 2E into our 1E games for years. I didn't at first like 3E, but to play organized play I had to. I came to absolutely love it for many years. The OGL made that an entirely different process. Had the OGL existed when I was a 1E fan, it could have kept me from ever benefiting from what 2E and 3E had to offer. That would have been a shame, and a big loss for TSR/WotC.

I'm still in the hobby because of the OGL. Because of the OGL I'm still playing/running a game that I enjoy playing/running. Maybe you dont like that fact but I'm fine with it. So from where I'm sitting the OGL is successful. Just not for who you want it to be successful for.

You misunderstand me. I love gaming in all shapes and forms. There is no wrong way to game and I'm glad to hear about anyone who finds a reason to stay a gamer. But, the OGL was problematic for WotC. WotC should want to be successful and should very carefully consider any OGL for D&D Next.