Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved

[ThirdWizard]

So no... I don't think a "sense of ownership" had anything to do with why 3E sold well... unless you can explain more specifically what exactly this "sense of ownership" is you are actually are talking about.

Not to speak for [MENTION=51747]dmccoy1693[/MENTION] but back in the '90s with the Internet becoming more popular, people were taking the fan material that at this point was the norm, and posting it online. There was huge backlash from publishers about this kind of thing. Look up the response of TSR, as well as other game publishers, and you'll see it was incredibly adversarial. Cease and desists, threats to sue, these were not the responses that the public had anticipated.

And even if WotC, after purchasing D&D, promised not to sue fans, there wasn't a lot of good will left. There wasn't a lot of trust.

The OGL gave fans a very real safeguard against this kind of thing. At that point in time, it was probably the most important aspect of the OGL. Not to sell the games, but to be sure that WotC wasn't going to send the lawyers after you or to have a safe haven if WotC got out of control like TSR did before them.

 

[Wicht]

But in the grand scheme of all those who played 3rd edition? Those people were an exceedingly small group. For the rest of us? The other 99% of 3E players who didn't create product to sell?

Huh, I know that when the OGL hit and I realized what it was, it made me, as a fan, feel like I had a greater ownership of the game, and in fact, it helped spur me into wanting to contribute instead of merely consuming. I always assumed that was the typical response and that most RPG players really invested in the hobby had a desire to be creative contributors.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Not to speak for [MENTION=51747]dmccoy1693[/MENTION] but back in the '90s with the Internet becoming more popular, people were taking the fan material that at this point was the norm, and posting it online. There was huge backlash from publishers about this kind of thing. Look up the response of TSR, as well as other game publishers, and you'll see it was incredibly adversarial. Cease and desists, threats to sue, these were not the responses that the public had anticipated.

And even if WotC, after purchasing D&D, promised not to sue fans, there wasn't a lot of good will left. There wasn't a lot of trust.

The OGL gave fans a very real safeguard against this kind of thing. At that point in time, it was probably the most important aspect of the OGL. Not to sell the games, but to be sure that WotC wasn't going to send the lawyers after you or to have a safe haven if WotC got out of control like TSR did before them.

Exactly what I was talking about. Thank you.

 

[Hussar]

Then came the switch to 4E and used a completely different license that was not give the fans the same sense of ownership. Infact it felt more like a leased vehicle or a rented apartment then owning a home or a car. Fans were not happy and thus did not buy in good numbers.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ible-Publishers-Involved/page21#ixzz2gheSOSIg

But, is this actually true? The 4e PHB outsold any other PHB since 1e. Unless WOTC was flat out lying about that. The game is profitable enough that it has allowed WOTC to take a 2 year hiatus from publishing any new material while they develop 5e, which is unprecedented for any gaming company.

Put it this way. Do you think Paizo could close up publishing today, not produce a single new product for two years, and develop Pathfinder 2.0? Do you believe that Pathfinder is that strong?

I honestly wonder if 4e isn't the mostly evergreen product that they said it would be. Sure, Pathfinder might be outselling in brick and mortar stores. But, who cares? It's not like WOTC is selling anything in that venue currently anyway. And, let's not forget, 4e is still outselling everything else on the market, even without publishing a single new product for over a year now. That's some pretty decent inertia built up right there.

I think the presumption that Paizo, because it's selling better in brick and mortar stores, is automatically the dominant game, is just that - a presumption. Which makes it very difficult to use as a basis for any analysis. It just ignores so much. D&D, according to Ryan Dancy, is a 30 million dollars a year industry. It's easily possible that the DDI alone can account for 25-30% of that. Not a bad deal for something that is costing peanuts to keep running.

 

[Mark CMG]

We don't really know anything non-anecdotal, and nobody's in a position to make declarations.

Except that we do know something non-anecdotal in that we know generally that the sales are good for the games you saying might only be selling well because they are quality games. But we also know that there are plenty of games of quality that do not use the OGL and don't sell anywhere near as well. Further, we have seen another game use a poorer version of the OGL, the GSL, that many would say is of equal quality, not manage to retain the full market share of the previous version with the OGL, despite having the power of the same brand name behind it and despite having great advances in the technology being leveraged to support it. On the one hand, you are using anecdotal evidence, the knowledge base of your group, to dismiss the strength of the OGL as a factor, while on the other hand dismissing the actual evidence based your relative devaluation of the OGL as a factor. What you suggest is that you can use anecdotal evidence to dismiss the OGL but not use the actual non-anecdotal evidence to favor the OGL. I find the argument unconvincing.

 

[Morrus]

Except that we do know something non-anecdotal in that we know generally that the sales are good for the games you saying might only be selling well because they are quality games. But we also know that there are plenty of games of quality that do not use the OGL and don't sell anywhere near as well. Further, we have seen another game use a poorer version of the OGL, the GSL, that many would say is of equal quality, not manage to retain the full market share of the previous version with the OGL, despite having the power of the same brand name behind it and despite having great advances in the technology being leveraged to support it. On the one hand, you are using anecdotal evidence, the knowledge base of your group, to dismiss the strength of the OGL as a factor, while on the other hand dismissing the actual evidence based your relative devaluation of the OGL as a factor. What you suggest is that you can use anecdotal evidence to dismiss the OGL but not use the actual non-anecdotal evidence to favor the OGL. I find the argument unconvincing.

I literally couldn't parse that paragraph! To clarify: what I am saying is that none of us are in a position to declare exactly why 3.x/Pathfinder sold/sells better than 4E. Perhaps it was because it had an OGL; perhaps it was just that folks liked that game more. I don't know; but I don't believe anybody else in this thread does, either.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Huh, I know that when the OGL hit and I realized what it was, it made me, as a fan, feel like I had a greater ownership of the game, and in fact, it helped spur me into wanting to contribute instead of merely consuming. I always assumed that was the typical response and that most RPG players really invested in the hobby had a desire to be creative contributors.

Creative contributors for what purpose? To make money off your creativity?

I was always a creative contributor to Dungeons & Dragons. I bought it, I played it, I invented stuff for it, I created monsters and characters and adventures and worlds. 3E did not change that. I didn't become "more creative" just because other companies sold their own D&D material. All it changed was that I could theoretically sell my stuff to other people too if they wanted to buy it.

But yeah, in that one regard... if you had aspirations to have a career in game design, I can see why you'd feel more "ownership" towards the game (since you needed the game's ubiquitousness and advertising to actually get people to see your stuff and maybe possibly buy it in the first place.) You were part of the Dungeons & Dragon sales force now, and its success drove your success. But the number of people who actually had those designs? We obviously have no official data to back it up... but in my own opinion based upon just seeing how many game companies / LLCs came into existence during those years... I suspect the number of 3E players who actually became merchandisers of their OGL material was an exceedingly small proportion of the total player base.

Which means for the rest of us... the game didn't really change. We "owned" it just as much as we always did. By buying it.

 

[Wicht]

Creative contributors for what purpose? To make money off your creativity?

No, to share that creativity. Getting a little something in cash is nice once in a while, but really, the true reward for me is hearing about people using and reading stuff I had a hand in.

The OGL made that possibility seem more likely and indeed it did make it more likely. I actually figured most long term roleplayers felt the same way about their own work. Talking with them seems to suggest the drive to create and share that creativity is not a small factor in the RPG community, at least that has always been the feeling I get from our crowd. Maybe I am wrong. But I would like to think not.

 

[Nellisir]

Creative contributors for what purpose? To make money off your creativity?

I was always a creative contributor to Dungeons & Dragons. I bought it, I played it, I invented stuff for it, I created monsters and characters and adventures and worlds. 3E did not change that. I didn't become "more creative" just because other companies sold their own D&D material. All it changed was that I could theoretically sell my stuff to other people too if they wanted to buy it.

But yeah, in that one regard... if you had aspirations to have a career in game design, I can see why you'd feel more "ownership" towards the game (since you needed the game's ubiquitousness and advertising to actually get people to see your stuff and maybe possibly buy it in the first place.) You were part of the Dungeons & Dragon sales force now, and its success drove your success. But the number of people who actually had those designs? We obviously have no official data to back it up... but in my own opinion based upon just seeing how many game companies / LLCs came into existence during those years... I suspect the number of 3E players who actually became merchandisers of their OGL material was an exceedingly small proportion of the total player base.

Which means for the rest of us... the game didn't really change. We "owned" it just as much as we always did. By buying it.

I was on TSR AOL from 1996 until it...dissolved, or whatever, and my outlook was much the same as Wicht's and ThirdWizards. The OGL gave me a "safe" way of putting my home campaign material online, whether or not I published anything (and I didn't until this year). The security to do that had literally not been there before. There was fan material online, much of it in the TSR/AOL file library, but there was real uncertainty and paranoia about moving fan material onto an independent site.

 

[darjr]

The other thing the OGL provides is continuity for players. Even if you never plan to publish a thing you might have a lot invested in the current edition. The OGL guarantees that others can make new stuff that supports all that material regardless of what the parent company does.