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

[Darrin Drader]

And as a result of that realization, they adopted a new license (the GSL) much more like an Apple license than an IBM "open platform".

IBM tried to stop the PC clone by suing the Compaq, which was the primary company doing it at the time. Their challenge failed in court and the rest is history. Fortunately WotC isn't dumb enough to make that mistake.

However, in trying to emulate Apple, they fail to look at why Apple doesn't have the market share. There is less software for it, it costs more, and other than having to deal with their counter-intuitive crap interface, there is no appreciable difference in functionality between an Apple and a PC. I'm sure that there are a couple people who would blow a gasket by reading that last sentence, but the fact is that for the past 10 years, you've been able to do everything with a PC that you could do with an Apple.

Now back to gaming. Is there anything that 4th edition does with the rules that you couldn't emulate with a 3.5 based product by tweaking a few things? I'm not saying that you should copy the at will/per encounter/per day structure, but there are certainly rules elements that could be added to a 3.5 based game to allow more movement options and attacks during combat, at will magical attacks, and special attacks that multiply damage dice. Streamlining the system has already been done with systems like True20.

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?

 

[portermj]

Is an Open Game system possible without an OGL?

I thought the OGL was more about the ability to use the D20 brand for marketing and to use elements of the D&D setting?

It seems like a community could have an iterative game system design without access to Drizzt, Melf's Acid Arrow, or Beholders.

 

[xechnao]

Open secret of open source: people don't get paid to write it.

People get paid to do all sorts of things with it, and sometimes they get concessions from their employer for being a primary author, but hardly anyone gets paid directly just to work on open source projects.

If you aren't doing it out of the love of doing it... well, don't look for compensation other than the joy of doing it. You might get some, you probably won't.

However: it turns out programming is fun! And there are lots of people who will do it just for the joy of doing it. IMHO, game design is similarly fun.

- - -

However, it should be noted: we're nearing a game-design tipping point. As Mike notes, there are some amateurs whose understanding of game design is comparable to that of a 20-year veteran, and yet these amateurs are just doing stuff for fun. This is the pool of talent that the RPG Linus will draw from.

There's just one last thing missing: a mathematical test harness for the rules.

See, in software, people can introduce bugs. So you don't just take any guy's code and add it into your kernel. You need to see what effect the new code would have on the operation of the system. Compilers, simple sanity tests, and actually having the damn thing boot up all checks.

We don't yet have a clear understanding of what such a test framework would look like, but it's not impossible to imagine some of the things it would test -- in a way, simulating a fight is like simulating a basket of correlated securities in a crisis, watching as some default and others survive at the other's expense.

- - -

Anyway, I think I had a point here... oh yeah:
1/ Don't expect to make money from open any-damn-thing; and
2/ Coherent leadership demands BLOOD AND IRON! -- er, I mean, a well understood "goodness metric".

Cheers, -- N

The problem with rpg design is not bugs because you have to keep them simple. That does not mean that you should not know mathematics as a designer. Certainly, to be able to know exactly what options one may have for developing various game goals as efficiently as possible, you need to have experience with mathematics. By definition this also helps you to invent your goals since mathematics is the tool and the goal your creation. People with enough experience here do not worry about bug problems. Playtesting takes care of this. The problem amateur designers face is development to a presentable and attractive message of their point. These are serious differences among software and tabletop games.

 

[xechnao]

IBM tried to stop the PC clone by suing the Compaq, which was the primary company doing it at the time. Their challenge failed in court and the rest is history. Fortunately WotC isn't dumb enough to make that mistake.

However, in trying to emulate Apple, they fail to look at why Apple doesn't have the market share. There is less software for it, it costs more, and other than having to deal with their counter-intuitive crap interface, there is no appreciable difference in functionality between an Apple and a PC. I'm sure that there are a couple people who would blow a gasket by reading that last sentence, but the fact is that for the past 10 years, you've been able to do everything with a PC that you could do with an Apple.

Now back to gaming. Is there anything that 4th edition does with the rules that you couldn't emulate with a 3.5 based product by tweaking a few things? I'm not saying that you should copy the at will/per encounter/per day structure, but there are certainly rules elements that could be added to a 3.5 based game to allow more movement options and attacks during combat, at will magical attacks, and special attacks that multiply damage dice. Streamlining the system has already been done with systems like True20.

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?

Apples to oranges. Wotc's deal is not what product it designs but brand name recognition.

 

[xechnao]

Is an Open Game system possible without an OGL?

I thought the OGL was more about the ability to use the D20 brand for marketing and to use elements of the D&D setting?

It seems like a community could have an iterative game system design without access to Drizzt, Melf's Acid Arrow, or Beholders.

Yep, this makes a part of the "historical problem".

 

[Darrin Drader]

Apples to oranges. Wotc's deal is not what product it designs but brand name recognition.

Is it? At the beginning of the open architecture, IBM and Apple had great marketshare and brand name recognition. Now, although both have name recognition, neither has marketshare. It might take another 20 years to determine who the real winner is with RPGs, but I would argue that it's still too early to determine at the moment.

 

[robertsconley]

We might simply lack an equivalent value in RPGs.

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.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Let's say that WotC then posts a job for an RPG designer. I'm now going to let you in on a little secret: almost 100% of your chance to get a job at WotC lies in your ability to do well on the design test.

I'm not trying to threadjack or anything, but I'd love to hear more about "the design test" if you're at liberty to share.

 

[mearls]

I'm not trying to threadjack or anything, but I'd love to hear more about "the design test" if you're at liberty to share.

We posted a version a while back:

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

 

[mearls]

Mearls, you can be the Linus Torvalds of RPGs.

You know you want it. It is... your destiny.

Sadly, I think it's more likely that my destiny is to mow the lawn tomorrow night.