D&D 4E Interesting Article on OGL and 4E

[Lizard]

As a side note, the existence of an online SRD makes me MORE likely to buy a book, because the knowledge I can keep the content on my laptop for access in play is a positive sales point -- and I don't pirate, and I don't like paying twice for the same book (in print and electronic format).

 

[Henry]

So, Pramas is patting himself on the back for not violating the OGL? He had no right to impede the effort. Not a single leg to stand on.

It seems to me that Chris' point was that Green Ronin did play by the rules and understood the consequences, and rather than doing the same, WotC is making a different set of rules. And he doesn't dispute that it's their right. To me, they're not realizing all the good consequences that did come from the OGL, and instead just looking at the bad ones. It seems like they find the OGL's nature played such a small or no part in 3E's success over the past seven years, that it needs to be altered in order to continue.

I realize that the GSL will not be the OGL. They will be different licenses. That's true. But, that doesn't make 4e closed. The GSL, apparently, will be a true reference document, without any of the text. So, if you want to publish a 4e module, you can by the GSL because you can reference the references (See Page X in Book Y), but, what you can't do is republish the actual content.

So, yeah, it sucks if you want to make a derivative game off of 4e. It's likely not going to happen since you can't reprint the text. But, for support material - new monster manuals, modules, whatever, it's just fine.

And this possible hampering of proliferation of the D&D system through other rules systems is what may hamper the popularity of 4E. Network Externalities will still drive the game, but I feel like it'll be back to 2E's policy of tying one hand behind its back rather than letting nature take its course.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone is going to come to D&D from, say, Mutants and Masterminds is not terribly realistic. Or, if it does happen, I'm pretty much sure that it's dwarfed by the numbers going the other way. The whole concept of Network Externalities requires a fair degree of parity between the nodes in the network.

But, there's no parity here. D&D dominates the market. If Castles and Crusades did not exist, would it have any net effect on the new players coming into D&D? I don't think so. Lots of players might start with D&D and then move on to other games, but, I'm thinking its a pretty rare thing for new gamers to come into the hobby through, say, Babylon 5 the RPG.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone is going to come to D&D from, say, Mutants and Masterminds is not terribly realistic. Or, if it does happen, I'm pretty much sure that it's dwarfed by the numbers going the other way. The whole concept of Network Externalities requires a fair degree of parity between the nodes in the network.

I think you misunderstand how network externalities and the Skaff Effect work here.

WotC doesn't care if PHB purchasers also buy a copy of Mutant's & Masterminds, they've already sold their PHB.

Their real worry is that the gaming group will, instead of buying into M&M for their supers fix, buy into City of Heroes -- i.e. go from playing tabletop RPGs to playing some other kind of game.

As the market leader, as long as a person is playing RPGs, WotC has a good chance of eventually getting some of that guy's money -- because of network externalities. So they benefit as long as the overall population of tabletop RPGers is high.

And, while it would be better for WotC financially if everyone was playing D&D, the world is such that there are intermediate levels of what's-good-for-WotC -- and people playing non-WotC tabletop RPGs are at a much higher level of what's-good-for-WotC than people deciding to switch to online poker.

M&M certainly doesn't bring as many people into the hobby as D&D, but it probably brings a few, and probably converts more than a few I-don't-play-D&D folks into thinking that maybe they'd give it a try, and every bit helps.

But the likely more significant effect is that games like M&M help reduce defection from the RPG hobby since they satisfy the needs of gamers who want some variety. And retaining potential customers is as important as gaining potential customers.

 

[Delta]

The philosophy behind Open Gaming had some pretty simple criteria:
( http://opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html )

The Open Gaming Foundation believes that a license must provide for two important features in order to be an Open Game license.

1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.

It's pretty clear that the new GSL will fail these criteria. (1) It won't be able to be "freely copied" (free meaning "as in freedom") because, for example, we know some people will be allowed to use it in June 2008 while most are prohibited until January 2009. (2) We know that the GSL will include the old d20 System "quality standards" requirement, which includes a termination clause on the part of WOTC.

The OGL was pretty carefully written so as to make it impossible to ever change it in a way that violated these principles. It's not like it's some kind of accident that WOTC just decided to rename it & change all the contents.

That's why the GSL is not an Open Gaming license.

 

[Hussar]

I think you misunderstand how network externalities and the Skaff Effect work here.

WotC doesn't care if PHB purchasers also buy a copy of Mutant's & Masterminds, they've already sold their PHB.

Their real worry is that the gaming group will, instead of buying into M&M for their supers fix, buy into City of Heroes -- i.e. go from playing tabletop RPGs to playing some other kind of game.

As the market leader, as long as a person is playing RPGs, WotC has a good chance of eventually getting some of that guy's money -- because of network externalities. So they benefit as long as the overall population of tabletop RPGers is high.

And, while it would be better for WotC financially if everyone was playing D&D, the world is such that there are intermediate levels of what's-good-for-WotC -- and people playing non-WotC tabletop RPGs are at a much higher level of what's-good-for-WotC than people deciding to switch to online poker.

M&M certainly doesn't bring as many people into the hobby as D&D, but it probably brings a few, and probably converts more than a few I-don't-play-D&D folks into thinking that maybe they'd give it a try, and every bit helps.

But the likely more significant effect is that games like M&M help reduce defection from the RPG hobby since they satisfy the needs of gamers who want some variety. And retaining potential customers is as important as gaining potential customers.

That's fair, but, I believe that it's overstating the case. While I agree that keeping people at the table is a good thing, keeping people at the table doesn't require a completely open gaming system. After all, there are a number of superhero games, to use your example, that do not use the d20 mechanics at all.

I think, and this is only a gut reaction, that WOTC discovered that what was happening is that gamers that were going to bleed off into other hobbies bled off at the same rate whether or not they played d20 games. But, what did happen was a larger number of gamers went into D&D and then moved on to d20 games and stopped buying WOTC products. That would provide a pretty good incentive for WOTC to put the brakes on companies taking their new mechanics and creating competing games.

Delta - That's an extremely narrow reading. Valid, but narrow. After all, after that six month period, the GSL becomes exactly the same as the OGL as far as being freely available to all. I'm not sure it's really a big deal to condemn WOTC for wanting an open field at the release of their new flagship product which they just spent thousands and thousands of dollars developing.

At the end of the day, it's six months. It does stop people from slapping "Core Rules I" on the cover of their d20 book (Relics and Rituals) and that sort of thing.

 

[2WS-Steve]

(2) We know that the GSL will include the old d20 System "quality standards" requirement, which includes a termination clause on the part of WOTC.

Number 2 is the big one IMO. A license simply is not an open license if it's revocable.

 

[2WS-Steve]

That's fair, but, I believe that it's overstating the case. While I agree that keeping people at the table is a good thing, keeping people at the table doesn't require a completely open gaming system. After all, there are a number of superhero games, to use your example, that do not use the d20 mechanics at all.

Definitely -- the people who came up with the theory think that White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and all those other folks back in the 80s and 90s were great for WotC.

One of Dancey's further motivations in pushing the OGL was that, during the 90s, there was a large fracturing of the rules sets people used, so that you had a large number of small communities of players each playing a different game system.

His worry was that this caused attrition in the hobby due to the friction of learning new systems. An example would be that Bob starts playing Vampire in college, then moves for his job and the local group plays GURPS. Bob would be more likely to drop out because he's unfamiliar with the system, doesn't want to learn a new game, or whatever.

If there was widespread commonality amongst game systems, even if not completely the same, then people like Bob would be more likely to find a game and stay in the hobby.

And you can point to examples for this. It's important for chess as a hobby that there be a standard version of chess. If everyone were playing different versions of chess, then it'd be much less popular.

That said, RPGs might be different. Many people playing them (DMs, me...) enjoy learning new games and trying them out, thus diversity of game systems keeps us in the hobby. However, many of my players have little desire to learn new game systems and only do so because they pretty much have to if they want a DM -- but I can only push that so far.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've moved this to the OGF forum now because it is pretty firmly in the land of discussing the game licensing etc.

Cheers

 

[JohnRTroy]

If someone has a sign reading "Free Papers -- Take One!", is it stealing if you DO WHAT THE SIGN SAYS?

There's nothing unethical about using content which people HAVE EXPLICITLY SAID IS OK TO USE.

It's a grey line. Even though I know it's technically okay, I think if somebody spends a lot of time creating a variant system like True 20, for the hope of selling things at a profit, and somebody else wants to take all that work and put it on-line "for free", that seems wrong, and I have a feeling a lot of people would agree with me. It's not cut and dried--it's sort of like obscenity laws, you can't clearly objectively define it.

You're right Lizard. It is part of the license. However, this conflict between the people who want things to be "free and open" and those that want to make a profit on their hard work is probably why Wizards will be releasing a new license. I'm not saying it's altruism on Wizard's part, but I am understanding the key factors involved. Hopefully the GSL will allow others to close up this consequence.

It's pretty clear that the new GSL will fail these criteria. (1) It won't be able to be "freely copied" (free meaning "as in freedom") because, for example, we know some people will be allowed to use it in June 2008 while most are prohibited until January 2009. (2) We know that the GSL will include the old d20 System "quality standards" requirement, which includes a termination clause on the part of WOTC.

1 and 2 make a lot of sense from Wizards point of few. They really gave away too much, seeing it from their perspective. I see (2) as similar to franchise rights. You can buy your own McDonald's or KFC, but you are expected to follow their procedures and standards. Granted, this could be "abused", but I think Wizards will want to have others use their license, so it will be a rare occurance.