Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6214826" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think the 3E reprints are all about DDN. They are a mea culpa - an apology to 3E fans for the "crush the heretic edition" approach they took last time (and 3E fans got the rough end of).And I think it's effective, to a degree. There are some folk who will never forgive, but there certainly seem to be some who have been mollified enough to give DDN a look, at least.Could the OGL be sharpened to deal with a few (minor) issues not envisaged by its creators? Undoubtedly. But we were talking about market intelligence a little earlier; there is absolutely nothing like seeing how well an innovative product sells for market intelligence - even (especially?) if that product is produced by a competitor.What business in general really needs to learn, in my opinion - and especially the games business, since they should understand game systems and processes better than anybody - is how to compete constructively. So many business folk see competition as a zero-sum game. The genius of the OGL was, in part, that it saw past that. If you can get 10% more share of the pie than the next guy that's swell - but if the pie is twice as big, everybody gains! No one company can give the customers everything they want - so generate lots of companies to do it! Show all your competitors what you are doing (while keeping a tight hold on your branding) and you can all learn off each other what the customer wants.Good grief, I have seen so often unproductive, blinkered and paranoid "competition" - I have even known companies (plural) who got so blinded by beating their competitors with certain customers that they were making a loss on their top-ranked clients!! The more they sold them, the more they lost - but they didn't even realise it and were too busy making sure they kept all that "premium" business to notice - it was insane. This was in the Chemical Industry, too, so you might even know some of the companies (I'm picking up that you are in Chemical Engineering - my first degree also - but that might be inaccurate).They just need to wise up about ways they can compete that are constructive for the industry as a whole instead of destructive.Think more in terms of a GURPS model - rules modules with settings and such besides. And different systems too, maybe, that cater to specific different tastes/styles.What WotC would have, with the OGL in place, is the D&D brand. They can sell OGL material with the assurance of quality that the brand gives. Does that mean they have to be very careful to keep up brand quality and coherence? Yes!! That's exactly what I mean by "healthy for WotC"! Being incentivised to keep your brand quality high is absolutely healthy - it's the very essence of much of what I have been saying, in fact. There's a lot to be said for looking at brand value as brand quality times how well known the brand is. Marketing can do lots about the last part, but if the brand quality is crap (and you're not the only brand in town) it will all be for nought.The "core books only" idea was, frankly, dumb from the get-go. It's the opposite of the case above, almost: keeping 30% of the market value is worth squat if the market shrivels away to nothing. And if you sold only core books, it would - the 3pps would create their own systems if there was no synergy to plug into, I reckon. And with no synergy for your core books, the line would die.On innovations: there will always be innovation in the marketplace. Plenty of indie games started up during the 3.x era, and towards the end there were plenty of non-D&D d20 games coming along, too. Having a core system to noodle around and expand upon makes it easier for new companies to get an entry to the market - and that's helpful to innovation in the long term.At the moment we're seeing a flowering of new games through Kickstarter which is great but really doesn't have any connection to the OGL one way or the other. Having a route for new ventures to raise capital, without the risk of bank loans, from people who actually know the product is fantastic. For too long large areas of innovation have been limited because the people with the money didn't know or care about the markets these ventures want to serve. But that can happen with or without an OGL or equivalent."These days" that may well be true - but both managers and designers seemed to lack exposure in the past. Or maybe the limitations generated by the internal processes just made it seem that way? I dunno.</blockquote>

Verification