OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Rasyr]

Just to repeat it:
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.

WotC did NOT give their system into the public domain, period. Releasing the SRD (which is only a subset of the D&D rules) under the OGL did not place it in the public domain. WotC still owns the copyrights to the original works, including the SRD.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

They were also playing in a pool with very few actual competitors at the time. And several of their competitors unofficially supported them by publishing compatible or generic material aimed at the D&D market.

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.

You have things backwards. d20 and the OGL would benefit 4e: keeping the market for gaming healthy overall, even if it means other companies exist and sell products, keeps WotC's sales high. It seems that gamers who buy lots of non-WotC d20 products are more likely to buy WotC produced products because that helps keep them in the market to begin with. No OGL means a shrinking market, and as the largest publisher in the market, WotC has the most to lose on that score.

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?

And I think that being bleak on this is silly, because it is in WotC's best interest to keep the OGL in place. It helps them garner sales for their flagship product. Getting rid of it will hurt them.

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?

That is likely a question no one can answer, as they don't actually have crystal balls. In 1988, could you have predicted that TSR would be out of business by 1998, and a company that no one had heard of would have bought them?

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Just don't be stupid about releasing your product and you are fine. You are actually better off using the OGL, because you are closer to the "mainline" game system, and can translate over better. Technical legal issues aside (and those can generally be avoided by having a lawyer on hand to adivse you from time to time), using the OGL is a winning proposition for a company, even if 4e is OGLess.

 

[Turjan]

WotC did NOT give their system into the public domain, period. Releasing the SRD (which is only a subset of the D&D rules) under the OGL did not place it in the public domain. WotC still owns the copyrights to the original works, including the SRD.

Okay, it's just a free perpetual license. That doesn't change anything with the point I wanted to make, though .

 

[Turjan]

Just in order to contribute something completely positive :

I think that the OGL is a great success in two ways that haven't been stressed that much so far.

• The publication of the core D&D rules in form of the SRD brought many more people into game design than ever before. Alone the possibility to discuss mechanical details of the most common RPG on internet fora without fear of retribution was an unprecedented step. I think that we owe this fact a fast-paced development of better and better rules modules that can be plugged on the base mechanics of d20 as we want it.
  
• Even though I had my criticisms with Ryan Dancey's review of WFRP2, I agree that this big pool of game design discussions can also be tapped by games outside of the d20 family. This can go both ways, either as good mechanics that can serve as an example how to change the mechanic of the own non-d20 game, or as something to set a contrast against. As the d20 rules pool contains lots of mechanics from many popular non-d20 games, it's a top collection to choose from.
  
• With the rules themselves (being distributed for free) having lost their commercial value, the product for sale came with top production values. Hardback full-color rule books became standard now. Other companies, like White Wolf or Steve Jackson Games, followed suit and succeeded. Those that didn't did less well. The result are generally pricier, but high quality books available for gaming. That's also a nice thing to have. Whether the OGL is directly responsible for this or this or not, it's a necessity now.

I think these three points are good results of the OGL that not many people will dispute.

 

[Rasyr]

You have things backwards. d20 and the OGL would benefit 4e: keeping the market for gaming healthy overall, even if it means other companies exist and sell products, keeps WotC's sales high.

Umm.... who says that the market is currently healthy?

No OGL means a shrinking market, and as the largest publisher in the market, WotC has the most to lose on that score.

Have you got a crystal ball that says that this will be so? Quite likely, if there is no OGL, the market itself will just make a few shifts in how it is distributed. Or it could be that an already shrinking market is one of the reasons for them to not release a 4e SRD under the OGL.

And before we go any further, I think it might be best if you give your definition of "market", so that there is a baseline for future discussions to make sure that everybody is actually talking about the same thing. You keep talking about the "market" and it just occurred to me that you quite possibly do not mean the same thing that I might mean when I mention the "market".

 

[Turjan]

You keep talking about the "market" and it just occurred to me that you quite possibly do not mean the same thing that I might mean when I mention the "market".

Well, I had the same impression. It's probably the point that everybody likes to see himself as the average customer, representing "the market" in it's entirety. I do not. I think that, in the current situation, "the market" will go wherever WotC will lead them, if they don't make any fundamental error *shrug*.


Fitting this discussion, here an excerpt from the Green Ronin seminar on GenCon:

Q: We see things splintering away from core rulebook, is that good or bad?
A: Chris: From our point of view, things went back for D20 when D&D 3.5 came out, if you were a 3rd party publisher, WOTC kicked you in the nuts (can't sell your backstock). Issue: Are you playing D&D right now, are you going to switch to those rules. Wizards definitely didn't sell as many 3.5 core rulebooks as 3.0, that excitement level can't be kept. It would be fine if they were really going to fix what was needed, instead of endless tweaks and changes (death of a thousand cuts). You can date the decline of the core D20 market from July 2003. We've continued to do core stuff, but when 3.5 came out, our line that was immune was Mutants and Masterminds. Well, D20 core sales going down, M&M continued to sell very strong. That is the economic message that we cannot afford to ignore. Frankly when Blue Rose came out, I wasn't expecting the story to be the rules set. If that works well, between us and other publishers helping us with True 20, we're creating our own network, stand on our own. What is Wizards going to do with 4.0? They could even have it not be open. It would drastically affect a lot of people. It's likely in 2007 or 2008, do 4th edition. Books they're putting out are getting more and more obtuse (oooh - sourcebook about cold places). They're not getting those numbers they got in like Manual of Planes with these specialist books. What happens to us then is an open question. If in the interim we built up our own network, that insulates us. Do we still like D20, sure. Would we like to do more: of course. We'll see.

Just for another voice from one of the leading d20 publishers, in addition to Matthew Sprange whom I mentioned above .

 

[Akrasia]

Damn -- you scooped me Turjan! I was just about to post that quote from Pramas (and was debating whether to do it in this thread, or start a new one).

 

[Turjan]

Damn -- you scooped me Turjan! I was just about to post that quote from Pramas (and was debating whether to do it in this thread, or start a new one).

Hehe .

I thought that 'WOTC kicked you in the nuts' from the boss of one of the leading d20 companies fits this discussion about continuity of the 'healthy' d20 market very well .

 

[Rasyr]

Yeah, I kinda liked that quote as well....

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=18273&mode=thread&order=0

Another good read, and relavant to this conversation as well. Apparently the industry isn't doing as well as some may think. Whether this is just part of a cycle or something else still remains to be seen....