OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Ranger REG]

I think D20 Modern is a footnote.

That's sad. I have been playing more of that ruleset than my first love (D&D) since I have been so jaded about the release of 3.5e. Currently, I no longer have the same excitement for 3e since 2000-2002.

 

[Ranger REG]

True. But the effect of such products is still to WotC's benefit: they need an active and growing pool of gamers to sell to. Those sorts of products, compatible with their flagship product, help drive the market, and ultimately keep the hobby thriving. Cut that off, and the market starts to stagnate, and WotC, as the industry leader, would likely suffer the most.

Their fanbase will shrink, but not so much they will suffer from loss. And seeing how many companies are moving away from the "PHB requirement" label (i.e., going strictly OGL) -- some have already done so -- WotC will still be there because of all the RPGs in the market today, D&D is still #1.

Sorry, but knowing there two faction inside WotC regarding the OGL/OGC debate, I'm not going to predict if 4e material will be added to the SRD. I'm not even going to predict if they will pull their royalty-free d20 System Trademark License offline.

As for the OGL, it will stay forever. Even if WotC don't add new OGC, the current SRD is still good enough to improve upon by non-WotC publishers. After all, the OGL is nothing more than a content license.

Of course this does beg a couple of legal questions: If there is a violation of the OGL and the violator does not comply with correcting it, and it happens to be your material you have contributed as OGC (or PI), is WotC allowed to be added as a plaintiff in the lawsuit since they are the author of the license? Can a Contributor sue the violator for breaching the license as well as infringing copyright (OGC is still copyrighted content)?

The current OGL so far only stated that the consequence for someone violating the license is simply the terminating their use of the license. Should the new OGL address further consequence, in case WotC no longer wish to enforce it?

 

[Storm Raven]

Their fanbase will shrink, but not so much they will suffer from loss. And seeing how many companies are moving away from the "PHB requirement" label (i.e., going strictly OGL) -- some have already done so -- WotC will still be there because of all the RPGs in the market today, D&D is still #1.

Go back to about 1996 and see how healthy TSR was then. WotC going it alone, and letting the hobby wither like it did back then would return everything to that era. And TSR didn't do well with that marketing model. I'm not saying it is certain that WotC will continue the OGL with 4e, if and when it is published, after all, companies do dumb things sometimes. BUt eh smart move for WotC would be to continue to OGL, for their own benefit.

Sorry, but knowing there two faction inside WotC regarding the OGL/OGC debate, I'm not going to predict if 4e material will be added to the SRD. I'm not even going to predict if they will pull their royalty-free d20 System Trademark License offline.

As for the OGL, it will stay forever. Even if WotC don't add new OGC, the current SRD is still good enough to improve upon by non-WotC publishers. After all, the OGL is nothing more than a content license.

And that is why companies publishing under the SRD don't have much to worry about. If you are publishing something right now using the current SRD that is completely unattached to the PHB, and WotC switches to an OGLess 4e, why do you care? Are you in a better position or a worse position than if you had your own "house" game system for your game? How would your situation be any worse than that of a publisher who has their own rule system? Both of you are now incompatible with D&D, but you are likely to be much closer for people who want to convert your stuff to D&D.

 

[Turjan]

No, I assume companies, in the absence of a 4e OGL, would be capable of emulating companies that successfully founded their business on making D&D related products long before the OGL was even thought of. Given the fact that they would have a very similar OGL to draw upon, they would likely be much more successful than companies like Mayfair were in the 1980s.

An "old" OGL stays an old OGL. Many people won't buy a product that's obviously "out of date", and you won't get them with facts like "but this is nearly the same!". They want 100% compatible. That's why companies want to use the d20STL. I often hear that those products sell much better than comparable products with just the OGL logo. You don't have to search for it; just look around on EN World! You will see enough posts that say exactly that: the only company producing "quality" is WotC, and these people only consider product that meets exact D&D 3.5 specification, everything else is worthless. That's not my opinion, but it's very common, and as funny as it is, it's even common on this d20 board. Green Ronin produced "Blue Rose" as softcover, because they didn't expect it to sell.

And yet, according to WotC, their current share of the market is larger than it was when they were competeing against those "nameless d20 companies that were no real competition". The simple fact that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that WotC is dependent upon the existence of a thriving gaming hobby, and the OGL is a huge part of making sure that exists. Eliminating the OGL will go a long way towards making sure that doesn't continue, and would be terribly detrimental to WotC. As a result, I find it highly unlikely that we will see a OGLess 4e.

Perhaps, perhaps not. This depends a bit on the newest numbers. It might be intelligent to make 4.0 OGL and to bind the customers of competitors to the own product. A restricted d20 STL might serve this purpose well. An OGL? Maybe.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the importance of a thriving hobby market. If the facts that Charles Ryan reported are true, WotC has been able to absorb the customers from the small d20 companies into their own customer base. This sounds a little bit as if the d20 market served its purpose. I'm really not saying any more than that: It's not sure how WotC sees its chances of keeping their customers together on their own.

In principle you are right when you see players of C&C and True20 as part of their potential customer base. It depends how they see their chances to get this part of the hobby to return to the "source" .

(As a footnote, well polished d20 companies are a benefit to WotC, since when people buy those products they are happy, and likely to buy more d20 products, and that most likely means they will buy some WotC produced products on the way. When people buy crappy products, they are less likely to buy more d20 stuff of any kind, which means WotC loses sales in the long run.)

I agree. That's why I made that WW remark before . And as you are talking specifically about "d20 stuff", this falls well within my own statements .

 

[Ranger REG]

Go back to about 1996 and see how healthy TSR was then.

Go back to the dark days when the Lady of Pain was running TSR's business to the ground? Do you honestly see someone sabotaging WotC now? If you do, let me know.

 

[Ranger REG]

An "old" OGL stays an old OGL.

???

What ... "old" ... OGL are you talking about? You're confuzzling me, man. If you mean the SRD, the current one, what's wrong with it? Any savvy designers can take the SRD and make improvments on it, turning it into a 2-Gen or 3-Gen rules engine. You don't need WotC's professional touch or blessing, especially if they do turn away and not updating the SRD to 4e material.

 

[Storm Raven]

Go back to the dark days when the Lady of Pain was running TSR's business to the ground? Do you honestly see someone sabotaging WotC now? If you do, let me know.

If WotC tries to publish an OGLess 4e, and "go it alone", in an effort to scoop up every corner of the entire market? If WotC tries to go back to the "many buckets" theory of marketing, and squeeze other publishers out? Yep, that's pretty much like going back to the Lorraine Williams days, at least in terms of how the publisher of D&D views the market.

 

[Turjan]

???

What ... "old" ... OGL are you talking about? You're confuzzling me, man. If you mean the SRD, the current one, what's wrong with it? Any savvy designers can take the SRD and make improvments on it, turning it into a 2-Gen or 3-Gen rules engine. You don't need WotC's professional touch or blessing, especially if they do turn away and not updating the SRD to 4e material.

Just to repeat it:

That's not my opinion, but it's very common, and as funny as it is, it's even common on this d20 board.

There's nothing wrong with the OGL. It just doesn't have any market value in case D&D moves on. The fact that WotC gave their system into the public domain shows that they didn't see their system as having any intrinsic market value. That's how life is. People only buy the new and shiny.

 

[Rasyr]

Are you in a better position or a worse position than if you had your own "house" game system for your game? How would your situation be any worse than that of a publisher who has their own rule system? Both of you are now incompatible with D&D, but you are likely to be much closer for people who want to convert your stuff to D&D.

Worse, plain and simple. Think about it. If you are basing your products on the SRD that had been released under the OGL, the SRD that WotC still owns copyright of, and the OGL also owned by WotC, then you have to worry about OGL violations.

If you violate the OGL in any way, the way that the license is written, you lose your right to use the OGL in ANY and ALL products, not just the one that violated. This is something that companies do need to consider and to think about. Heck, look at two recent major releases by Malhavoc, both contain what appear to be violations of the OGL, because they do specifically state that you are "required to have D&D" to use those books, yet neither carry the d20 logo. Either one could be used to shut Malhavoc down.

Those companies not using the OGL or the d20STL for their products don't have this worry.

Now if WotC were really smart, they would NOT release 4e under the OGL, but would continue to allow use of a (modified) d20 STL and logo, but only for a very restricted class of products, thus ensuring that those companies that continue using D&D as their basis do not become competitors for the core books and continued to support the D&D line.

And one thing to keep in mind here is that WotC is not a stand-alone company. They are owned by Hasbro which does have a bit of a reputation about being ruthless against its competition.

 

[Ranger REG]

If WotC tries to publish an OGLess 4e, and "go it alone", in an effort to scoop up every corner of the entire market? If WotC tries to go back to the "many buckets" theory of marketing, and squeeze other publishers out? Yep, that's pretty much like going back to the Lorraine Williams days, at least in terms of how the publisher of D&D views the market.

LOL!

The Lady in Pain had a purpose for sabotaging TSR. Before she came into power, TSR didn't have a problem selling their wares.

I honestly don't think that WotC, should they decided to "go it alone" for the new edition of D&D would be sabotaging themselves. D&D-only fanbase could care less about d20. If the purpose of 4e is to improve D&D then that's all that matters to them. They could care less if 4e can also benefit d20 and OGL.

I don't mean to sound bleak. WotC going to make business decision that is in their own best interest, and if there are less of their office people supporting OGL started up by Ryan Dancey, then there is less likely the vote will be in favor of continuing support. So, why don't we take what we have now and spin it into a different direction?

But if you need a company answer, ask WotC at GenCon: Will you continue to add material to your SRD and support OGL for the next 10 years?