Legends and Lore - Charting the Course for D&D

[Mercurius]

Hmm, let's see:

3E + OGL = Wildly successful and inauguration of D&D Renaissance
4E + GSL = Not-so successful and fracturing of D&D community

Gee, I wonder which would better serve popularity of D&D and the health of the community? I know it isn't so simple, but the OGL approach is--imo--the way of the future and there's not really any going back without massive dissatisfaction among the community.

 

[KidSnide]

The third party strategy is -- without a doubt -- a critical part of whether the next edition of D&D will be successful.

However, that strategy is about more than just the OGL. Given the importance of DDI, it is also vital for third parties to know how they fit into WotC's digital tools. That is to say:

(1) Will third parties be able to include their data into the tools that WotC produces, possibly allowing WotC to capture some revenue from the third party data App-Store-style; and

(2) Will third parties be able to use WotC's data in creating their own digital products (presumably only for customers signed into DDI).

Either way, I'm not sure it was wrong to leave OGL out of the first day announcement, although I agree that it's an early issue that WotC needs to deal with early enough to give third parties a chance to plan their offerings.

-KS

 

[DEFCON 1]

"Spite?" Yeah, I don't think so.

You don't think gamers sometimes refuse to do something because something pissed them off? Ha! You're funny!

I guess you haven't been reading that thread about how Wyatt's "guards at the gate aren't fun" comment still has some people cheesed off and they refuse to play 4E because of it. Heh heh.

 

[drothgery]

Hmm, let's see:

3E + OGL = Wildly successful and inauguration of D&D Renaissance
4E + GSL = Not-so successful and fracturing of D&D community

Gee, I wonder which would better serve popularity of D&D and the health of the community? I know it isn't so simple, but the OGL approach is--imo--the way of the future and there's not really any going back without massive dissatisfaction among the community.

except there's also
OD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&2e + only ad-hoc company-to-company licensing, if any = creating a wildly successful game

 

[Mark CMG]

You don't think gamers sometimes refuse to do something because something pissed them off? Ha! You're funny!

I guess you haven't been reading that thread about how Wyatt's "guards at the gate aren't fun" comment still has some people cheesed off and they refuse to play 4E because of it. Heh heh.

You should probably take that misconception and dismissal of other people's opinions over to that thread. As was explained in that thread, his statement could be taken literally (which is problematic) or one could assume some other intent (some found it could mean one thing and others thought it meant something else) which left the statement just as problematic. It really wasn't an edition problem but a playstyle problem. With this new edition, WotC is professing a hope to encompass many playstyles so your pointing out that thread seems to be bringing up something WotC should consider rather than dismiss.

 

[DEFCON 1]

However, my point (however facetious I might be in presenting it) still stands. Some gamers refuse to play some games for reasons completely removed from the game itself. You might not want to admit that many of us gamers are that shallow... but I think some of us certainly are.

 

[Mark CMG]

However, my point (however facetious I might be in presenting it) still stands. Some gamers refuse to play some games for reasons completely removed from the game itself.

Well, that's fair enough.

You might not want to admit that many of us gamers are that shallow... but I think some of us certainly are.

I wouldn't characterize it in that way but I guess I understand where you are coming from, so I'll leave aside the characterization and agree to agree?

 

[Kalontas]

However, my point (however facetious I might be in presenting it) still stands. Some gamers refuse to play some games for reasons completely removed from the game itself. You might not want to admit that many of us gamers are that shallow... but I think some of us certainly are.

I wouldn't call "refusing to play a game on ideological principles" shallow. I would call it "having a spine and being able to refuse yourself entertainment because of more important reasons for the good of the industry".

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wouldn't call "refusing to play a game on ideological principles" shallow. I would call it "having a spine and being able to refuse yourself entertainment because of more important reasons for the good of the industry".

That's fine. You just seem to be putting way more import on this industry than I'm willing to. I have a very hard time having "ideological principles" on any of this. To me, they're games. Just games.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It also made no sense to take forever with the GSL, deliver it months late, and then have to go back and do it over again before any of the 3PPs would even consider touching it, thus driving Paizo to abandon its plans to support 4E and create Pathfinder. But that's what WotC did.

It's always dangerous to assume that people have all their ducks in a row and are making every decision out of clear-eyed, cool-headed, well-considered self-interest. Like DEFCON 1, I suspect they're still hashing out what kind of third-party licensing, if any, they will allow.

I wholeheartedly agree, but alas I must spread more xp around...