OGL; Is it working?

[eyebeams]

*Nothing* sells well next to the PHB, your observation has no value.

That's funny. It had plenty of value when Ryan Dancey observed it. It was the rationale for the OGL taking care of non-core.

Wizards is simply after a piece of the non-Core pie, which they can quite happily chew on *at the same time* as watching the cash roll in from people who need to purchase the PHB to play third-party supplements.

Sure they are. But the lower the margins the more risk involved in several avenues, from comitting staff to avoiding the treadmill effect.

Your facts are probably correct, but your language - as always - is designed purely to provoke.

This is a backhanded personal attack and I've reported it as such.

 

[eyebeams]

Isn't it possible that the d20STL and OGL are a success, even if all the original stated goals weren't realized?

Definitely, yes; see my first post in this thread.

I mean, no, it looks like the OGL didn't wholly rid WotC of the need to produce adventures and supplements. But does that necessarily mean that it didn't still shift some of the burden off their shoulders? And that those 3rd-party products didn't still drive interest in their core product, i.e., the PHB?

I'd say no the the first and yes to the second.

And how about Dancey's goal of driving support for other systems to a minimum? It's been established in other threads that there is no reliable data about the RPG market to which any of us are privy, so I all I can do is report what I see. I see that the top companies Ken Hite lists each year aren't all making different systems; at least a couple of them are d20. That's different than before the OGL. I also have seen that Kenson's Freedom City setting, instead of becoming a HERO supplement as originally intended, spawned a d20/OGL game, and one of the best d20 games at that.

It doesn't look like a drastic reduction in other systems to me, but it seems less disparate than before, even if minimally. Perhaps this is simply the minimum level we're ever going to see.

I'd say there were the same number of commericially viable systems as ever, or more if you count OGC variants. As for commercially nonviable systems, the OGL has worked pretty well to make everyone who wanted to make a D&D variant just use OGC instead, and for OGC tweaks to absorb many less viable systems. (For example, the World of Darkness kept its system, but the World of Darkness clone called The Everlasting went OGC).

Aside from that, commercially dodgy systems have a home in .pdf and the free RPG scene, but that's a technological change.

 

[Henry]

I need to remind people in this thread to please be a little more considerate of one another. If you see someone insulting you, please report it, and let us deal with it.

Your facts are probably correct, but your language - as always - is designed purely to provoke.

And as such, you're trying to provoke another poster into escalating the insults. Reporting it is a better thing if you see someone breaking the rules.

They had to get their hands dirty hawking product that the company line used to argue was beneath them, and that's the long and short of it.

And this, while certainly not complimentary, is not really breaking the rules. Agreeing to disagree is the best last recourse.

Let's please try to keep civil still. I'm trying to issue as few suspensions and bans as possible for the holidays, but it certainly isn't getting any easier in the past two weeks.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm in the camp that feels 4e will not be OGL. If the OGL had actually worked to WotC's benefit, the way they expected it to, it would be more likely that they keep it. As it is I don't think they have any reason to continue to release under the OGL.

And I doubt dropping the OGL would have any impact on 4e.

I'm inclined to agree. The OGL ended up fracturing the market in ways that WotC didn't intend with the release of variant core systems like AE, M&M, and so forth. That said, from a consumer standpoint, the OGL-movement was a huge success. Gamers got lots of new games that likely wouldn't have ever been produced without the OGL and they got to play these games using mechanics that (mostly) didn't radically change from game to game. As long as there are publishers willing to put out D20 material for OGL games or even for 3.5 D&D and D20 Modern, I'll happily let 4E pass me by. OGL may not have done exactly what WotC set out for it to do, but it did wonders for those that buy the games.

Plus, I agree that 4E won't be negatively impacted enough by being closed for WotC to notice. Most D&D players will move on to the next incarnation, not all, but most. There will be a few that still with 3.5, just as there are some that have stuck with their favorite edition over the years. Heck, I may even start posting as "3.5's_Diaglo" when 4E comes out!

 

[Nikchick]

You also get a lot of people saying that they "don't" want something, but giving you no data on what they do want.

Ain't that the truth!

But trust me, there are a lot of really crappy companies out there and no one is complaining about what they do, because no one cares. There are VERY few companies that I would take the time to spell this out to. So, I'm really meaning to help and I really just claim to speak for my point of view. If my position doesn't represent where the funds are, then so be it. But when you hear complaints of this type, I think this is, more or less, what is meant.

Seriously, BryonD, thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts on this. I don't think we're all that far apart on the issue, we're just starting from opposite ends. The TW thing in particular is a bit of a sore spot if only because we tried to make it all about core D&D in every way we could, and inside the company anyway we felt that TW is just about as D&D a setting as you can get, so hearing that the message got lost is a disappointment and a frustration. After 5 years of putting out books, we kinda thought that people understood that a product released from us under the D20 logo = use this in your D&D game while no D20 logo = this is its own thing, but you know its parents so don't be scared. Judging from the comments here, that's obviously not the case for many. (Of course, that gets back to the question of whether this represents a situation that needs to be addressed by us as publishers, or if it's just part of that cacaphony we're talking about.)


Anyway, I'm not trying to shoot the messenger.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm in the camp that feels 4e will not be OGL. If the OGL had actually worked to WotC's benefit, the way they expected it to, it would be more likely that they keep it. As it is I don't think they have any reason to continue to release under the OGL.

I wouldn't doubt 4e being Closed, but it seems mostly publishers saying it, so it's hard to say it's an unbiased opinion.

Will 4e be closed? who knows, we won't even be able to accurately predict WHO will be in charge when it rolls around, so there's no way to judge. Also, I don't think current WotC hates the OGL that much, since they're still pretty easy going with it. If they were hostile to the idea, they could seriously harm a lot of companies, IMO.

I think the "rush of supplements" helped 3e greatly, but not because WotC didn't have to publish, but more because they didn't have to publish them right away. Within a year of the 3e set hitting, there were numerous adventures and supplements, and WotC could sit back and crank out anything they wanted at their own speed. With 3.5 they've come into a steady release schedule.

I'd wager that the presence of the supplements may have improved WotC's sales of Core's, while at the same time not really harming their later supplements. They can make whatever book they want right now, without worrying explaining why they haven't done X yet.

And I doubt dropping the OGL would have any impact on 4e.

It's a different example, but take Shadowrun 3rd edition as an example. It took so long for the supplements to come out, it seriously hurt interest in the game for a lot of us. With a closed 4e, people would be looking at the release schedule with a sense of waiting for the core stuff to be published, waiting on new material.

With an open system, it gives WotC more room.

 

[philreed]

With a closed 4e, people would be looking at the release schedule with a sense of waiting for the core stuff to be published, waiting on new material.

With an open system, it gives WotC more room.

I think it all depends on what you expect from 4e. I, personally, expect a miniatures/board game with a few roleplaying bits tacked on. For that sort of game you need new miniatures on a regular basis and simple map/adventure packs. And not really much more.

That sort of material would be a lot easier to produce than 160-224 page books.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm inclined to agree. The OGL ended up fracturing the market in ways that WotC didn't intend with the release of variant core systems like AE, M&M, and so forth.

The thing is, it fragments the audience that is buying third party stuff, but not the core market of D&D I think. It won't harm D&D's sales, but it does consign some material to the back burner that would otherwise sell if it was D20.

Plus, I agree that 4E won't be negatively impacted enough by being closed for WotC to notice. Most D&D players will move on to the next incarnation, not all, but most. There will be a few that still with 3.5, just as there are some that have stuck with their favorite edition over the years. Heck, I may even start posting as "3.5's_Diaglo" when 4E comes out!

A thought, but I wonder how the casual player, who gets books from Borders, percieves the OGL/SRD/ D20 License? I'm sure there's plenty that have never even heard of it. Plenty of early books were made to mimic WotC style, and I think that's what they were aiming for. Mimic WotC's "trade dress" and someone buys your book thinking it is part of the series.

4e's negative press from being Closed will probably be a bunch of posts on message boards online, while the rest of the community doesn't even notice the change.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think it all depends on what you expect from 4e. I, personally, expect a miniatures/board game with a few roleplaying bits tacked on. For that sort of game you need new miniatures on a regular basis and simple map/adventure packs. And not really much more.

That sort of material would be a lot easier to produce than 160-224 page books.

True, but they could already do it, and don't. Mind you, this is coming from someone who sees all the "3.5 is even more miniature-requiring!" posts as just people looking for something to harp on. I just don't think it'll work, it's like making Battletech into Clickytech, sure it works as the combat game, but the restriction of options causes a loss of players. You'll gain some players, but I think they're more transitory. RPGers tend to be a loyal lot, unless you go out of your way to piss them off.

On that note (and not directed at you at all), it's always surprising to read these threads and see publishers you like being generally rude or defensive to the point of presenting the image of their company in such a way. Sometimes on the internet, it's better to not post something, rather than unleash the attack dogs. Everyone has their bias, but in such extreme's, it can drive people away.

 

[buzz]

I think it all depends on what you expect from 4e. I, personally, expect a miniatures/board game with a few roleplaying bits tacked on. For that sort of game you need new miniatures on a regular basis and simple map/adventure packs. And not really much more.

That sort of material would be a lot easier to produce than 160-224 page books.

I just don't get the impression that this is what the designers want. D&D Minis already does this. And I don't see how OGL would hurt this, anyway.

Really, if Joe Gamer wouldn't even notice, why not err on the side of staying open and not fracturing the audience into 4e and OGLe players?

Agian, IANAII.