OGL; Is it working?

[Umbran]

I doubt it's enough players pulled away from D&D for WotC to notice, but it is a fracturing of the player base.

"Fracturing" is such a strong word for something that may not have been a major effect.

And, how strong a "fracturing" effect would we see if they closed 4e? Either due to ill will or lack of supplement choices, some folks would inevitably wander off to play other games.

If WotC is smart, they won't ask "How many units did the 3rd party publishers sell," because closing 4e will not automatically result in all those sales going to WotC. They need to ask both "How many of the 3rd party sales could we actually get?" and "How many other sales would we lose?"

Hopefully, at the time 4e is released, the folks who make the final business decisions are wise enough to know, and have enough clout and resources to ask the questions properly.

 

[WizarDru]

It was one of the things that WotC supposedly didn't want to happen, but it happened anyway.

I'm not sure that's exactly what they were trying to prevent, though. I was under the impression they wanted the core system to remain popular, not that they didn't want people to purchase other systems. That is to say, they wanted people to play d20-derived games RATHER than d6 or Storyteller-based games, because it made movement back and forth from their core system much easier.

For example, when my group was playing GURPS for the fifteen years between AD&D and 3e, we tended to stay in GURPS for our game of choice. Yes, even for stuff like Superheroes. Ease of movement within the system was, I thought, a feature of the OGL.

If I'm really taken with d20 and use D&D for fantasy, I'm less likely to move to, say Champions; I'm more likely to prefer a d20 based Supers ruleset, for ease of rules mastery amongst myself and my players. It's much easier to say "combat is very similar to D&D, but without AoOs and a different, simplfied damage model" than "combat has tons of options not in D&D, with lots of different stats and a completely different process of resolving attacks and damage."

At least, that was what I assumed was part of the goal there. There are folks here who are much more in the know on that topic than I.

 

[Kanegrundar]

At least, that was what I assumed was part of the goal there. There are folks here who are much more in the know on that topic than I.

I'm inclined to agree, but we're starting to see more people (at least from the stance of message boards, which aren't the best barometer for what people are playing) move away from buying WotC products. At any rate, I was pretty much just thinking aloud here to see what others thought about that arena in this discussion.

 

[Kanegrundar]

"Fracturing" is such a strong word for something that may not have been a major effect.

And, how strong a "fracturing" effect would we see if they closed 4e? Either due to ill will or lack of supplement choices, some folks would inevitably wander off to play other games.

If WotC is smart, they won't ask "How many units did the 3rd party publishers sell," because closing 4e will not automatically result in all those sales going to WotC. They need to ask both "How many of the 3rd party sales could we actually get?" and "How many other sales would we lose?"

Hopefully, at the time 4e is released, the folks who make the final business decisions are wise enough to know, and have enough clout and resources to ask the questions properly.

I hope and expect you're right, that WotC will/does have their heads on straight about whether or not to make 4E an open system.

As far as any player base fracturing is concerned, you'd likely see more of it happen if 4E is closed since players of OGL games won't have to be buggered with learning the 4E mechanics since there would be no chance of their game being updated to those mechanics. Like I said earlier, I doubt that the number of players that they could lose in the switch to a closed 4E would make much difference. D&D is, and likey will still be, the big dog in gaming. No matter how much some fans will state otherwise, they will likely follow right along into the next edition of the game like players have done time and again in the past. Sure, there will always be some that stick with their favorite edition, but they will be in the minority.

 

[buzz]

Probably nothing beyond anecdotal evidence. You can see it on the boards as well, some people are playing C&C and nothing else, same for Star Wars, AE, M&M, and so on. I doubt it's enough players pulled away from D&D for WotC to notice, but it is a fracturing of the player base.

Is it really a "fracturing", or are these people who would have gravitated away from D&D regardless? I mean, I have to believe that people playing SWd20 or M&M exclusively are people who didn't want to be playing a fantasy RPG to begin with, D&D or not.

And doesn't the ability to use D&D material in these games with minimal-to-moderate tweaking mitigate the fracturing somewhat? I mean, you can use just about any D&D adventure with Iron Heroes without much tweaking. Even less using them with AE.

I dunno. My anecdotal experience is a lot less fracturing than back in the pre-open days. All of these d20 players are at least speaking vaguely the same language, as it were.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Is it really a "fracturing", or are these people who would have gravitated away from D&D regardless? I mean, I have to believe that people playing SWd20 or M&M exclusively are people who didn't want to be playing a fantasy RPG to begin with, D&D or not.

In the case of SWd20 and M&M, you're likely right. How about the people that have left D&D for C&C or Blue Rose/True 20?

And doesn't the ability to use D&D material in these games with minimal-to-moderate tweaking mitigate the fracturing somewhat? I mean, you can use just about any D&D adventure with Iron Heroes without much tweaking. Even less using them with AE.

I'd say it lessens it somewhat unless they are playing those games without outside influence from the D&D product line. What about new players picking up an OGL game not realizing that they could use D&D material with it? After all, if they are new to the hobby and are picking up a game that caught their eye, like Game of Thrones, Iron Heroes, or AE there's not the big D&D logo on the books to let them know that they are more or less usable with D&D. WotC loses out on sales right there since they don't even have to look at D&D products to play.

I dunno. My anecdotal experience is a lot less fracturing than back in the pre-open days. All of these d20 players are at least speaking vaguely the same language, as it were.

It's only recently that I've seen the move away from D&D in some groups. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to paint a picture that 4E is going to doom the sales of D&D. Whatever fracturing occurs will be minor at best, but I can't discount what I see and hear at the FLGS and what I read on the messageboards. Sure, we're all speaking the language of D20, but that doesn't really mean squat to WotC if we're not buying WotC D20 products. I think the whole standalone OGL products wasn't entirely what WotC was after. Sure, those players aren't taking their dollar to play a totally different system, but they aren't taking their dollar right to WotC either.

 

[GMSkarka]

I can promise you, I've decided never to support the work of certain writers/publishers after viewing their antics on various forums. Just in my small gaming group, several others have the same attitude. I'm sure there are many others who never bother to post saying so, but next time they see that author/publisher's name on a book go "oh yeah, I remember him", and move on to the next one.

Yes, but for every one that does that, there are also others that agree with what the publisher said and/or did, who are MORE likely to purchase. It all evens out. None of it really matters, in the end.

The short of it is, people buy the material that interests them, and the message board behavior of those involved in producing it have little to no overall effect on the sales of that material.


Trust me on this....I'm probably one of the more infamous examples, in some circles, of someone to whom this effect would have occurred. I have made quite a lot of folks angry over the past 10 years, and many have said, loudly and publicly, how they're "never buying my stuff."

Despite that, I manage to run a business that is in the top 10 sellers on the largest PDF sales site....sales which DEPEND on an internet-savvy audience (and hence those most likely to be familiar with my "infamy."), and I make a full-time living at it, which is more than can be said for most of the people in this business.

 

[eyebeams]

People who like to pick fights on messageboards, and hope to sell their work to that same group, might want to reconsider their actions.

Hm. OK. Nah.

 

[eyebeams]

Let me be more clear: I don't see it has having value against JoeG's assertion that many lines are doing well in the third-party marketplace, that quote preceding your reply.

It was not a statement made against any such assertion, so that would make sense, wouldn't it?

 

[Belen]

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.)

I do not think the message was lost. Instead, I think that people look on it as yet another CS that does not really do anything. TW is a great setting for people who were teenagers and adults in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember seeing the books around when I was a kid, but I do not think it appeals to large base in this day an age. I think TW would have been far more successful as a city book than a player's guide. Not to mention that the existance of a player's guide automatically gives the impression that people do not really need to use the PHB. I know that it not the case, but I am better informed that most.

IMO, licensed settings are both fringe and blah. They are the ultimate in "nostalgia" product and their real appeal is to fans of the original work who also happen to play RPGs. That is trying to appeal to a small market in an already small market.

The books that I most want to see are things that would enhance the game rather than force me to play in some defined area. A book detailing a city/town/bardic school etc that included adventure hooks or a book that went beyond new feats, spells, etc and provided iconic kits. Tell me what type of equipment that would allow me to be a legionaire. Books that added or changed rules from the normal would have been cool. For instance, I would have loved to see a book that made other forms of fighting equal to power attacking two-handed. I have had to create that material for myself because d20 companies would rather create their own licensed stuff.

People are right in saying that the obvious books were made a while ago. However, instead of innovating, we can new licensed work such as Black Company and TW that allow a d20 company to put out the same onvious books, just for that particular world. If that makes sense.

The last year or so has been "meh" on the third party stuff. I thought that becoming a WOTC delegate would be a dream because I got the WOTC books for free and could devote my entire RPG budget to third party stuff. The problem is, the WOTC (however bland) was the only stuff that I wanted.