OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Ranger REG]

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.

There were strong competitors at the time. Vampire: The Masquerade is the more popular RPG outside of WotC.

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.

It would benefit 4e, but I doubt they feel it is dependent on them.

Besides, there is nothing WotC can do to stop current publishers to deviate away from their royalty-free Trademark License. All the publishers got is a proverbial kick in the nuts. WotC released 3.5e simply for the D&D fans. They just didn't think about the ripple effects of third-party publisher and their backstock.

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.

We can argue 'til we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, we don't know their final decision regarding 4e. You're being hopeful (and I like that), but I'm being pragmatic.

That's why I don't want to think about the future and 4e. I'm content with the status quo.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I'm not all that savvy with the ins and outs of publishing, but, it seems to me that you have to examine the costs and benefits of an action before undertaking it.

How would WOTC benefit from dropping the OGL? I would think the very large negative press (a la WW's recent debacle), the howling from the 3rd party publishers and the very real chance that 3rd party publishers would simply remain in the OGL and carry on (such as Mutants and Masterminds) and pull away a large number of consumers.

There's one thing that tends to get glossed over with the change from 3e to 3.5. The reason the publishers got "kicked in the nuts" is because 3.5 was OGL. The 3.0 OGL became invalid as soon as the 3.5 one came out. If there is no 4.0 OGL, then the 3.5 OGL remains valid and retains value.

I would be very shocked if WOTC did this. It seems a very risky venture with very little benefit IMHO.

 

[Ranger REG]

How would WOTC benefit from dropping the OGL?

They no longer have to assign extra resources adding and approving new OGC material into their SRD.

They make D&D products for D&D fans, even when it is already been spotlighted by outside d20 products. I recalled having to recommend Seafarer's Handbook to a fan inquiring about a book on naval adventuring, and he said, "okay, but I'm more interested in what WotC published." Shrugs. Oh, well...

Besides, it's all a moot point because using strictly OGL -- and not using the Trademark License -- you cannot say nor advertise that your OGL products is compatible with D&D. OGL is simply a content license.

 

[eyebeams]

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.

None of these had anything to do with the OGL's actual purpose. The hardcover standard has nothing to do with the OGL and everything to do with technological and economic changes in printing combined with long experience that hardcovers have a longer sales life. White Wolf had planned successive hardcover support for the Revised (not the current New World of Darkness) Vampire, Werewolf and Mage back before the OGL was released (Vampire: The Masquerade Revised has 7 hardcovers in its run -- just over one for every year the line existed.)

 

[Turjan]

None of these had anything to do with the OGL's actual purpose.

Correct . That's why I didn't say anything like that !

 

[eyebeams]

They no longer have to assign extra resources adding and approving new OGC material into their SRD.

They make D&D products for D&D fans, even when it is already been spotlighted by outside d20 products. I recalled having to recommend Seafarer's Handbook to a fan inquiring about a book on naval adventuring, and he said, "okay, but I'm more interested in what WotC published." Shrugs. Oh, well...

One problem for D20 publishers is that any niche broad enough for breakthrough success can be replicated by WotC with higher production values and full use of the D&D rules. Company X's book about fighters, orcs and so on only sell until WotC makes a book about these topics.

(Incidentally, this isn't as true for .pdf products, though as the developer/writer of a cyberpunk genre .pdf line, I'll be watching D20 Cyberspace pretty carefully.)

 

[eyebeams]

Correct . That's why I didn't say anything like that !

I know, but it affects whether or not its gonna stay around

What your comment reflects is that the OGL just didn't do what it was supposed to do. So success or failure isn't a determination you can easily make, because it depends on whose interests you're talking about. Was it in the interest of WotC? Was it in the interest of hobbyisys? Of new companies? Existing ones? The answer is going to be different for each group.

 

[Turjan]

I know, but it affects whether or not its gonna stay around

I agree .

What your comment reflects is that the OGL just didn't do what it was supposed to do. So success or failure isn't a determination you can easily make, because it depends on whose interests you're talking about. Was it in the interest of WotC? Was it in the interest of hobbyisys? Of new companies? Existing ones? The answer is going to be different for each group.

I meant these as positive results for the development of RPGs as a whole, in the interest of the customer. One of my points is good for WotC (with a few negative side effects), one is detrimental to D&D, one is neutral but gives it a slight advantage (because of D&D's big print runs).

 

[RFisher]

The effect of making a D&D4e not OGL would barely show as a blip on WotC's radar. Their share of the market is so much bigger than anyone else. (Not to mention that D&D is not their bread-and-butter.)

I doubt the majority of D&D players even know that the core of 3e is OGL. The vast majority almost certainly haven't taken the time to understand what it means, even if they know. So, I don't think the OGL would be a significant factor in the success of a D&D 4e.

(& note that there is no bad press. Every instance of someone who understands the OGL trying to explain why a non-OGL D&D 4e is a bad thing will only help a D&D 4e.)

In truth, when I first read the OGL, my impression was that it's real purpose was so that the designers of 3e wouldn't find themselves in Gygax's position. They knew they wouldn't be working at WotC forever. The OGL insured that they could still play with their own toys after leaving WotC.

(Well, not really "insured". The TSR suit against GDW over DJ showed that even taking every legal precaution doesn't mean that you won't get sued & that the company with the bigger bank account can still manage to force things into a settlement in their favor. Still, the OGL is a best attempt at insurance.)

It also made sure the designers' names would follow the SRD material whereever it went.

The d20 System License & Ryan Dancy's marketing rationals seemed like just a way to sneak the OGL past executives or the board or whoever might oppose the OGL. (Well, actually, Ryan's rationals did have merit.)

So, from that perspective, the OGL has been successful.

 

[Michael Tree]

Why are we talking only about two possibilities, the 4e using the OGL or being completely closed to publishers? If WotC decides to not use the OGL for 4e, it would more likely use an alternative licensing scheme that has the same purpose of expanding the market, but which gives more control to WotC. A free but non-open license, or one that only costs enough to pay for an additional WotC staffer to oversee it, might serve WotC's interests better.

This wouldn't affect stand-alone OGL products that have their own player base, like M&M, True20, and maybe AE, but would allow some 3rd party companies to continue to produce support for D&D fantasy games. It would also allow WotC to not create a SRD, since they could just contractually inform the publishers they license what parts of books they were and were not authorized to use.