OGL? SUccess or failure?

[Shining Dragon]

So, you're worried about the d20 System Trademark License. Big deal. WotC have the right to revoke the license at any time, so for some companies that are riding on WotC's coatttail, just enjoy the ride while it last ... until D&D 4e or d20 Modern 2.0 is released.

While some companies may be "riding on WotC's coatttail", it can be said that WotC is using those companies as well. It will be interesting to see what happens if D&D 4e isn't released with a d20 System Trademark License or under OGL (Will WotC support their own product with unprofitable supplements? Will people turn away from the game as being unsupported?).

 

[Turjan]

In other news, the sky is falling.

You might have a case from the standpoint of a gamer, but companies have to be on their toes regarding these things. They sometimes react on rumours or gut feelings, and they often have to, if they have too much money invested in a market that can be torn away from under their feet on short notice. I just mentioned Mongoose's Matthew Sprange and Runequest, because he is one of those people who will, when asked to answer the question "When will we see D&D 4.0? Sooner or later?", opt for "sooner". He said as much, and he's acting according to this opinion.

This is just one example that illustrates that imagined changes can have real consequences. Keep up your "The sky is falling" joke. You might be right with your opinion that D&D 4.0 is still years ahead and we don't have to bother about the question whether it will be OGL or not. This doesn't change much about the fact that some companies already adjust their strategy for this possibility now.

 

[Campbell]

There is one recurring undercurrent within this thread that I simply can't understand : What evidence, other than standard gamer paranoia, is there that WotC would publish a 4e without some kind of open license ?

 

[Turjan]

What evidence, other than standard gamer paranoia, is there that WotC would publish a 4e without some kind of open license ?

None. The problem is that there is no commitment to the opposite, either .

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

What do I think we will see happen if a fourth edition is published without an OGL?

Small press publishers will move their d20 brand products entirely under the OGL and keep right on going. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of companies band together to create their own "OGL" brand identity, if any one of those companies alone wasn't strong enough to do it solo.

A 4e would return DnD to the solitary location it occupied prior to the OGL, but those people enjoying OGL material and exposure would simply retain their 3e or 3.5e corebooks to use as the rule books for all the OGL material people would keep using. After all, even though the d20 STL can be cancelled, preventing anyone from putting out any d20 product, the market has long since learned that OGL can be successful without the d20 logo. If the latter is no longer an option, the market would likely be quick to pick up an independent symbol of recognition to replace it and, unlike the d20 STL, the OGL cannot be cancelled and put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Rasyr]

There is one recurring undercurrent within this thread that I simply can't understand : What evidence, other than standard gamer paranoia, is there that WotC would publish a 4e without some kind of open license ?

None actually, and nobody has ever claimed there was.

I just happen to believe that 4e will not be open.

I just happen to know of several d20 publishers who believe the same thing.

I just happen to know that WotC's current lawyers (from a comment Dancey made elsewhere) don't like the OGL.

I just happen to see a number of companies putting out full alternatives to D&D (using the d20 SRD as their basis) in greater and greater numbers (note: these are products that compete directly with the core rulebooks).

Note that it is quite possible that they do not release 4e under an open license, yet still go ahead and put it under the d20 STL (which would make sure that any company using the logo is directly supporting WotC rather than letting them become competitors for the same market share). I doubt that this would happen, but it is still a possibility.

 

[Ranger REG]

While some companies may be "riding on WotC's coatttail", it can be said that WotC is using those companies as well. It will be interesting to see what happens if D&D 4e isn't released with a d20 System Trademark License or under OGL (Will WotC support their own product with unprofitable supplements? Will people turn away from the game as being unsupported?).

Well, I don't know about WotC's supplements being unprofitable. I mean despite the vocal criticisms here about some of their [D&D] products, they still continue to sell.

Then there are the D&D-only fans who, when you talk to them, still don't know what d20 products are out there and still complain why WotC won't cover such-and-such topic like naval adventure (before Stormwrack we had five non-WotC d20 products covering it).

For d20 fans, if 4e won't support d20 then they'll have to look to the publisher to go OGL. If they can't, then that's the end of it.

 

[Ranger REG]

I just happen to know that WotC's current lawyers (from a comment Dancey made elsewhere) don't like the OGL.

Nah, not just lawyers. There seem to be oppositions from among the WotC's R&D group.

Which begs a question: Is the Open Source concept a good thing or bad?

 

[Rasyr]

Nah, not just lawyers. There seem to be oppositions from among the WotC's R&D group.

See! I don't know everything!

Which begs a question: Is the Open Source concept a good thing or bad?

Originally, I thought it was a good thing, a very good thing. I was even part of the group that helped to hammer out some of the bits of the OGL. But I am not so sure anymore.

There is no doubt that the open source concept (and for those who don't know - the open source concept has been around for a long long time, it is not a new concept, the only new thing about the OGL was attempting to apply it to a rpg system as opposed to software (or the general scientific arts before that)) has been a fantastic thing for gamers in general. It helped to revitalize the industry when it was seriously flagging. It provided a ton of new gaming material to gamers.

On the other hand, for publishers, it is more of a yes-n-no situation. It was good thing in that it tremendously lowered the entry bar, allowing many new companies to form (they did not have to spend major resources on developing their own systems), and it created an instant market for these new companies as they did not have to establish themselves with a new system - they used one that already had an extremely large following.

However, on the flip side, the bar for entry into the industry was drastically lowered allowing many new companies to form. And all of these new companies were fighting for the same market share. These new companies were also producing (early on) tons of new products, all competing with one another (how many books on dragons? how many on dwarves? how many on fighter? etc..), and they were all producing their own variations on a theme. How many different sets of mechanics are needed for casting a spell? These new companies were all coming up with their own new rules, and not creating a central depository of rules, selecting only the best.

One of the largest differences in open source programming (such as with linux) as compared with open source in gaming is that there is no central control. With linux, you have Linus Torvolds and a hand-picked group deciding what gets added and what doesn't. There is no such control with open source gaming. In short, it was a free-for-all. There still isn't any control to speak of, no review process for mechanics, etc.. And no, I do not consider consumers as a control in this.

The OGL is closer to Sun's CDDL than it is to the GPL, I now think.

Wow! I kinda rambled, huh?

To recap, I think that it has been both a good thing and a bad thing - in different ways.

 

[Ranger REG]

Sometimes you have to take the bad with the overwhelming good, like Free Speech.