In contrast to the GSL, Ryan Dancey on OGL/D20 in WotC archives

[mearls]

Perhaps, but then you point out part of Apache's value is allowing other projects to run well with the server at the core. DMs and players can use more options for settings, cities, adventures, sites, encounters, and monsters.

More so the rule projects could enable games with in a game to allow the type of systems that Kenzerco's Aces & Eights uses or Traveller. Trading, castle building, mass combat, etc.

The right kind of rules project can enable a whole secondary ecology of related products.

You know, that's an interesting idea. One of the things that Ryan talked about was this idea of templated rules. An open project might describe the effect a rule generates, and maybe give an example for one game, but that basic description could be applied to a number of games.

For instance, for a gritty version of 4e you might have a rule that gives a character a lingering injury for dropping beneath 0 hit points. The specific rule in 4e isn't useful in other games, but the concept might be.

For instance, you could do something similar in CoC, but the specifics would have to be redesigned to work with BRP.

 

[WhatGravitas]

We posted a version a while back:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051007a

That's an interesting link - thanks for posting. And I think that's one of the things OGL needs - a sharp designer understanding these things behind the rules. Currently, even if you are a rules tinkerer, it is hard to get such knowledge - the only way is by trying to get to the things, by trying to understand it - but there's no reference.

One part of the Open Source movement is the open source code. I don't really think that open rules are akin to open source - a lot of the OGL is closer to an ecletic mix between freeware and open source.

Open source allows you to get insight into the underlying principles, however, RPG rules do not. Such in-depth discussions of rules (as in the link) or the designer's though behind it are the equivalent of "open source".

That's, however, something that's preciously hard to get to. Some tinkerers don't think about it and use their gut, other do, but do not post it, and some *do* post it. And that's the pool we are working with - the community. Because we don't have a lot of designers producing such design documents.

Of course, that's a problem with "traditional" gaming - we have no Forge, where such design is discussed.

This means that open gaming needs more of such hubs, simply on the grounds of getting "source code", i.e. design notes and principles together - a base for attracting more people who then learn more about RPG design from that.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Open Source Code is (usually) documented and commented on. Open Rules (often) not.

I loved Monte Cooks design diaries. I like the "Behind the Curtain" stuff in the 3E DMG. I like the "Designer Notes" in the Pathfinder Alpha.

An important part of any "Open Gaming" has to be that the designers not just writes down his rules, but the design intent behind them. Why is he doing it this way? How does he believe it accomplishes what it is supposed to accomplish? How does it interact with other rules?


Still, I think it can sometimes be dangerous to compare software and role-playing games. The analogies work sometimes, but not everywhere, and it's important identify the similiarties and the differences.

If Open Source software itself does not make money, but the services offered with the software itself do earn money, how does this translate to Open Gaming? Does it translate at all? The closest might be the idea of a publisher taking the open rules and creating a "core rulebook" from it. But to me, that also sounds similar to something like a Linux distribution, which are usually free. Only if you want to get the CD/DVD version (instead of dowloading it) you need to spend some money.

Large open source projects like Linux, Open Office or Eclipse usually have a certain organization to ensure quality and define what's in and what's not. Linus Torval might not write a lot of code for Linux itself these days (I am not that familiar with Linux, but the last thing I heard was that he was very busy creating and improving the repository/version management system that handles the various versions of the Linux Kernel), but someone still decides what goes into the Kernel and what not. You can freely "houserule" it, I suppose, but there is still a kind of "official" Kernel. Eclipse is strongly supported and likewise shaped by IBM.

What does Open Gaming have as equivalents? Are their multiple projects (Linux, Open office, Eclipse and countless more), or is their actually just a single one (d20 System?). I tend to think it's going in the latter direction (True20, Modern20, Grim Tales and what not), but these are still strongly linked to the individual publishers. Or are True20 & co just the equivalent of Linux distributions, and only other games under OGL (Spirit of the Century?) can count as different projects?
How are these individual projects organized, how to they improve?

A fundamental difference between open software and open gaming is also that it is easy to update software. The computer doesn't half-remember rules from the previous version. He just uses the current one. The computer directly runs the new software. A human being still needs to reference the rules, which often means he needs a print product or something similar.
Software development cycles can be very fast. An entirely new version of Windows might come around only every few years, but all those little patches are still development improvements. Similar things can be said to Linux, Open Office or Firefox.
Is it even possible to recreate this effectively in gaming? WotC put out a lot of errata, but is this equivalent to the small patches and .x version updates? And - how useful is this at all?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Open Gaming has one other challenge to surmount, which is a cost for accessing it.

If I download Firefox, I can start using it immediately and pick up all the nifty features while surfing the web. But if I download an RPG, there's an investment of time in reading it and understanding it before there's any payoff in play. And if it's an RPG along the same level of complexity as 3.x, that investment of time is really quite significant. That's a cost--and it's offputting to the target market. Any OGL game has to surmount that cost in perceived value added before it will receive significant community interest.

Complexity is key. I'm sure an unbiased university would say 1e D&D was complicated enough that you could earn a degree for understanding it well.* That's a really serious investment of time and effort! It's much quicker and (reckoning learning time in £, $, or whatever currency you get paid in) cheaper to play WoW.

The reason we still play D&D when there's WoW is because a GM creating an individually-tailored game makes for better gameplay, and imagination has better graphics, than any MMORG. But try explaining that to a teenager who's never tried RPGing...

Which is why, when OSRIC 2 comes out, my marketing angle isn't going to be, "OSRIC: It's free!" It's going to be, "OSRIC: You already know the rules." Because that's more of a benefit: If you earn (say) £12 per hour, then a game that takes three hours to learn costs £36 + cover price. So my game's £36 cheaper than a free game.

What I'm coming to is this: A collaborative open game needs to be "cheap" to learn. If it has a single web-portal that has everything you need, a simple and streamlined rules framework that works fast and elegantly in play, and a modular set of options you can hang off the framework to complexify and add detail to whatever part of roleplaying tickles your fancy, then it's much more likely to succeed.

But if it's so simple and open source, it doesn't need the OGL.

Which is why, I think, the OGL has resulted (and will keep resulting) in near-clones of various D&D editions: that's what it's optimised to do.

*Assuming there's someone who understands the initiative rules well enough to grade the papers, of course...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The reason we still play D&D when there's WoW is because a GM creating an individually-tailored game makes for better gameplay, and imagination has better graphics, than any MMORG.

If I ever wanted to use a real signature, and to quote someone in it (aside from the adorable saying of my young cousin, that is), this would be it.

 

[Belen]

If the D&D Vs. Pathfinder schism becomes like PC Vs. Apple, then the only question is what the customers will do. Will they continue to follow D&D out of brand loyalty, or will they adopt Pathfinder because of its open source nature and the greater amount of available material for it. To compare and contrast for a moment, D&Ds biggest advantage for a long time was that it did every product in color and most other publishers couldn't afford to do so. Now, not only is that not only not true, but you have Pathfinder publishing full color products on all of their products. D&D will (presumably) have more rules supplements while any Pathfinder player can use any 3.5 rules supplement ever produced by anyone, and they can produce their own rulebooks of their own if they so wish. D&D has a brand that goes back to the start of roleplaying (so did Apple in the computer field), while Pathfinder traces its roots back to the same brand and the same company. One is essentially completely completely open while the other is not. Which one will win in the end?

Seems to me that Pathfinders success will be tied to producing a good monster book that simplifies encounters as opposed to 3.5.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Open Gaming has one other challenge to surmount, which is a cost for accessing it.

If I download Firefox, I can start using it immediately and pick up all the nifty features while surfing the web. But if I download an RPG, there's an investment of time in reading it and understanding it before there's any payoff in play. And if it's an RPG along the same level of complexity as 3.x, that investment of time is really quite significant. That's a cost--and it's offputting to the target market. Any OGL game has to surmount that cost in perceived value added before it will receive significant community interest.

This is an important point.

IMHO, the most valuable thing that D&D possesses is its network of established players. Many good RPGs into obscurity because they can't establish this kind of support base.

The current market position of D&D is almost a textbook example of network externalities at work - the value of D&D to a new player depends to some extent on the number of existing D&D players in a given geographical area. The value of the game to each individual player is at least partially determined by the fact that it is easier to find a group of people willing to play D&D than it to find a group of people willing to play almost any other RPG on the market.

Think of it as a positive feedback loop - the more potential D&D players that are accessible to you, the more likely it is that you will play D&D rather than a different RPG. And this means that investing the time and effort necessary to learn the rules of D&D brings you a bigger 'reward' (in terms of actual gaming time) than an investment in mastering any other system - even if you prefer the other system!

Of course, any time that a new edition of D&D is published, there is a risk that this feedback loop will be broken. So far there has been enough continuity between editions that D&D has managed to retain its existing network of players.

To a large extent, this phenomenon has depended upon the existence of a shared D&D mythology that transcends individual editions.

Even when 'edition wars' occur, there is some sense that the argument is really about which edition most accurately captures the essential experience of D&D.

IMHO, one of the most risky things about 4e from a business sense is that it jettisons large chunks of the shared mythology and tries to define what the experience of playing D&D is all about in a new way.

 

[Belen]

I think that Mearls is easily understandable in the thread. I think he is lamenting the fact that the fan community has very little input into the rules and no strong base with which to share design of traditional games. Many of the people who do get into design eventually try to sell the work.

When the OGL first came into beings, we had a huge fan outpouring into projects such as the Netbook of Feats etc. Eventually, those types of initiatives fell by the wayside as the PDF publisher community expanded. In a sense, the open gaming movement stalled as fans decided they were going to get paid rather than release rules in a free environment.

Thus, the publishers retained the power to dictate the rules to fans. If I wanted gritty D&D, then I chased after Grim Tales. We do not have a gritty D&D fansite that discussed an released rules for gritty D&D.

I agree that publishers are part of the community and they perform a valuable service, but until now, we have seen little movement of fans to organize a solid network for traditional design. It has remained individuals asking for thoughts on a specific rule, but no real movement to adopt a solid core rules database. The closest we have come to this has been places like Planewalker or DarkSun3e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. Publishing products for money doesn't hijack the community. However, turning the community's outputs so that they benefit only a publisher, and indirectly its fans by giving them something to buy, would be hijacking the community.

Are you referring to the GSL here? Because, from where I sit, WotC has left the Open Gaming movement and taken its ball with it insofar as it is able. This is not because 4e is not published under an OGL, but because the GSL seeks specifically to limit publishers from using the OGL in specific ways if they also use the GSL. And 4e seems to be built, again from where I am sitting, on te community's outputs.

OTOH, we have products like Paizo's Pathfinder which is specifically ope to all. Not only is Pathfinder "a product that Paizo will sell for its own direct economic benefit" (and what product, including 3e and 4e, is not? - you create a false dichotomy by any other suggestion), but Pathfinder Alpha at least was entirely OGC, meaning that it can be used for the direct economic and gaming benefit of anyone.

Far from "The publisher picks what gets pursued, what gets used, and what the goal is. The publisher is in charge.", Paizo has left everyone in charge. If you don't like Pathfinder, you can use what you like, discard what you do not like, and then publish it. The users decide what they like best....exactly what you describe as "a true open environment".

WotC left the Open Gaming movement with 4e, and is reaping the results of that. Pretending that, therefore, those who continue to provide OGC materials are somehow "hijacking" the movement is misguided at best.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that Mearls is easily understandable in the thread. I think he is lamenting the fact that the fan community has very little input into the rules and no strong base with which to share design of traditional games. Many of the people who do get into design eventually try to sell the work.

I would say that:

(1) It is not unreasonable to wish to get paid for producing content. Even so, many publishers have included free OGL on their websites. A good example is the Pathfinder Alpha release.

(2) The value in a product, in terms of open gaming, is the amount of OGC that product contains. Bastion Press, Necromancer Games, etc., have contributed to the open gaming movement far more than some other companies that could be named.

(3) Regardless of how many "pay products" there are, the OGL allows this material to be used in almost any way by the community, in perpetuity; the GSL does not.

IMHO, Mearls' complaint re: the OGL is nothing more than sour grapes over others having competing products....and that, because those products support open gaming, some folks prefer them.


RC