Mike Mearls On the OGL

[xechnao]

I don't get what you people are saying.

What I have seen so far is this:

As long as a brand, controlled by a capital, has enough power, OGL as a movement is destined to deal with it.

Do you want OGL or D&D? You can't have both. 4e has proven this: Wotc, or lets just say the big players capital's power, is not to be trusted as a pure and only condition for OGL's health, if another power is under the big players control.

The OGL failed because it was attached to D20 and D20 was D&D's system. It did not fight D&D as much as it should. If Conan or whatever was build on another system the OGL would have more power and the D&D brand less power. In this case 4e D&D would be open and D&D as a brand less powerful. OTOH OGL would be more powerful and still accessible to everybody under OGL's conditions.

If you are a pro-OGL guy and the current situation (4e) makes you sad it is not Wotc's fault. It is 3pp's fault that had not been able to give to the OGL more recognition than D&D's D20 system.

What I do not know is this: do 3pp only want to make a quick buck for their pockets or do they want to invest to OGL and its movement and its potential for achieving and making better games? If its the first case the big motivator, OGL is destined to fail. At least as long as it is not the most attractive choice to make a quick buck that is.



I like to hear if anyone sees things differently than this and how so.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Which is odd, because if not for the OGL Mearls wouldn't have his WotC job. Go figure.

Just because Mearls created OGL products doesn't mean it's the sole reason for his job.

In the past, you submitted articles to Dragon. Designers and developers submitted articles to Dragon magazine, APAzines, or worked for the competition before working for TSR. It's very likely he would have submitted games via the official channels if there wasn't an OGL.

If there wasn't an OGL, maybe Mearls would have submitted to Dragon or worked for a non-WoTC company before being recruited.

You can't directly say the OGL is the sole reason Mearls was hired.

 

[Scribble]

The OGL failed because it was attached to D20 and D20 was D&D's system. It did not fight D&D as much as it should. If Conan or whatever was build on another system the OGL would have more power and the D&D brand less power. In this case 4e D&D would be open and D&D as a brand less powerful. OTOH OGL would be more powerful and still accessible to everybody under OGL's conditions.


I like to hear if anyone sees things differently than this and how so.

What I dissagree with is that the OGL "failed..."

The OGL didn't fail... WoTC's orginal intention for the OGL failed, or more correctly, WoTC's intention for the d20 license failed. (which is what I think Mearls is talking about... the combination of the two... which in the early days in WoTC's eyes I think was seen as one...)

The OGL is still alive and kicking. You can still use it.

Since 3e was released under the OGL you can still build a game based on those elements slap the OGL on it and go.

Or you can build you own ideas, slap the OGL on it and go...

D&D 4e just wasn't released under the OGL. Just like GURPS wasn't or WoD, or RIFTS or countless other non OGL games. But at least they still recognize that allowing people to use their trademark in order to support their game is a good idea.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Just because Mearls created OGL products doesn't mean it's the sole reason for his job.

In the past, you submitted articles to Dragon. Designers and developers submitted articles to Dragon magazine, APAzines, or worked for the competition before working for TSR. It's very likely he would have submitted games via the official channels if there wasn't an OGL.

If there wasn't an OGL, maybe Mearls would have submitted to Dragon or worked for a non-WoTC company before being recruited.

You can't directly say the OGL is the sole reason Mearls was hired.

He did outstanding work on OGL products. Including some evolutionary work. I'm sure that previous work done on OGL products , his creativity, ability to work with others and talent surely all had something to do with it.

 

[xechnao]

The OGL is still alive and kicking. You can still use it.

Since 3e was released under the OGL you can still build a game based on those elements slap the OGL on it and go.

Or you can build you own ideas, slap the OGL on it and go...

D&D 4e just wasn't released under the OGL. Just like GURPS wasn't or WoD, or RIFTS or countless other non OGL games. But at least they still recognize that allowing people to use their trademark in order to support their game is a good idea.

Possibility and actuality are two different things. What we actually know though is that 4e D&D outsells OGL products. This is a failure of OGL as a movement for now. I am not saying it is a definite failure. It can change -things change. But the conditions of change are those I outlined I think for the reasons I mentioned. This is where I want to hear your opinion.

 

[Storyteller01]

The only problem I have with the comparison is that's it's apples to oranges. Open source programming has a defined objective goal. Even Mr. Mearls states this. Roleplaying has always been subjective, more of an art form. Mechanics are 'better' or 'worse' based on how a group accepts them.


It would have been better if the comparison were to various movie making accessibilities, or open student programs (photoshop, illustrator, flash, etc) examples used to improve the industry as a whole.

 

[Scribble]

Possibility and actuality are two different things. What we actually know though is that 4e D&D outsells OGL products. This is a failure of OGL as a movement for now. I am not saying it is a definite failure. It can change -things change. But the conditions of change are those I outlined I think for the reasons I mentioned. This is where I want to hear your opinion.

I'm not sure really what you want to know?

I don't think the OGL failed... The OGL is a license like any other... it's there, use it how you want to. Just because someone buys more D&D products then games using the OGL doesn't mean it's failed...

I wouldn't call Linux a failure, yet more people use Windows...

The only thing I see D&D doing is saying we're tired of carrying everyone. If you want to be carried by us, then support us.

d20 logo license / ogl was originally designed to do that. Support D&D and make D&D better by doing so...

But instead people dropped the d20 part and made their own stuff that wasn't D&D, and didn't need D&D, but used the methods and ideas D&D brought to the table.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Considering that there was enough OGL material put out that is similar to the current 4e rules, it might be too soon to count out the OGL.

I still expect an OGL 4e clone to be cobbled together out of any and all open material that resembles, but pre-dates, elements of the 4e system.

 

[xechnao]

I'm not sure really what you want to know?

I don't think the OGL failed... The OGL is a license like any other... it's there, use it how you want to. Just because someone buys more D&D products then games using the OGL doesn't mean it's failed...

I wouldn't call Linux a failure, yet more people use Windows...

The only thing I see D&D doing is saying we're tired of carrying everyone. If you want to be carried by us, then support us.

d20 logo license / ogl was originally designed to do that. Support D&D and make D&D better by doing so...

But instead people dropped the d20 part and made their own stuff that wasn't D&D, and didn't need D&D, but used the methods and ideas D&D brought to the table.

I am not talking about OGL as a license but as a movement. What I am saying is that as a movement it has failed for now (I accept failure here as a term since 4e outsells now OGL products) because it has been following D&D. The only way that it will prevail as a movement is that it stops following D&D so it can surpass it. Unfortunately, so far OGL was too attached to D20 and D20 was more D&D and less OGL regarding recognition.

 

[Storyteller01]

But instead people dropped the d20 part and made their own stuff that wasn't D&D, and didn't need D&D, but used the methods and ideas D&D brought to the table.

Which is what everyone else has done since the beginning of time. Cars, architecure, art, electronics, weapons, and pretty much everything else that has been invented has gone through this. It's just how things work.


I don't fault the wotc for GSL. It didn't kill OGL. And I can't really fault wotc bid for game control as survival (regardless of rumors, stocks have fallen). But in the end I think wotc, through the GSL and marketing practices, just dealt the death blow to d20 if not D&D.

They're willing to under cut LGS for immediate profits from larger companies such as B&N as well as Amazon. The latter selling the books at a 55% discount from retail, the former not relying on it for survival and still selling at a discount most LGS can't match. Those who sell first and cheapest get the customers, and both companies have proven through early releases that they don't fear wotc's or small business reprisals from the RPG community.

After that, you consider the illegal spread of free scanned books on-line, and a willingness to have a free book as opposed to supporting the games stores. Gaming and hobbies stores will move elsewhere. An example, our FLGS is contemplating removing roleplaying from their stock all together. They make 20 times as much selling GW products per month than they do RP products. This is exacerbated by friends telling potential customers 'dude, I have that on PDF. i'll send you a copy later".

Once LGS stop selling, what's left to advertise the product? It's word of mouth, as most products will be sold on-line or buryied in a book store. Word of mouth alone will not sell D&D. It isn't vital enough for most peoples life to remian in the forfront of their minds, especially with a possible recession coming.

If we can't afford to carry 4th ed, why would we consider carrying OGL, or even GSL, something that regularly sells less than D&D itself by simple advangtages of time in the market and a bigger production budget?