Pramas on the OGL

[TerraDave]

Chris Pramas reacts to the hot topic in some of the threads here.

From his blog.

Monday, March 31, 2008
Debating the OGL
Over the weekend there was a bit of a brouhaha at ENWorld because of a quote from Liz Schuh, the Brand Director of D&D (and one of the better marketing folk at WotC in my experience). People were asking after the Game System License and Liz gave the following quote:

“We’re still vetting our final policy regarding open gaming. As soon as that process is complete, we’ll make an official announcement. Stay tuned for more information.”

This raised some eyebrows because previously statements had been more along of lines of, "We're working hard to finalize the GSL." If you look at this as a carefully worded bit of PR, you might suspect that WotC is rethinking its whole open gaming strategy. Some people began to wonder if this might be the prelude to an announcement that there will be no GSL or OGL of any kind for 4E, effectively closing the game off from third party development. That could be, though it's also possible that Liz was trying to make a neutral statement and didn't realize how it might be interpreted.

It's not the statement I want to talk about but the ensuing debate. What I found fascinating was the almost religious zeal of open gaming advocates. Over and over people would assert highly debatable things not only as facts, but also facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them. The upshot of these posts was that if WotC did not embrace open gaming for 4E, they were not only betraying the community but also cutting their own throats.

Now look, the OGL has certainly been good to me, and probably only Monte Cook has benefited from it more, but many of the oft-repeatedly claims of the open gaming advocates are theories, not facts. No one, including WotC, has done the market research to confirm these suppositions. At best people offer anecdotal evidence. I think it might be useful to run through a few of the open gaming theories and see what the facts support.

Third Edition D&D was a success only because of the Open Game License.

This is the easiest one to debunk because I was at the epicenter of both the 3E launch and the beginning of open gaming. When 3E came out, open gaming was a new concept and barely anyone knew about it. The game debuted after an intensive year-long marketing campaign. It was the first new edition of D&D in over 10 years and people were excited about it. By the time the first d20 products, Death in Freeport and Three Days to Kill, were in stores, there were already at least a quarter million Players Handbooks in retail channels. The brand power of D&D at 3E's launch was enormous; that of the OGL was nil. I think it's fair to say that 3E would have been a hit OGL or no.

The OGL created a safety net to catch gamers who otherwise would have left the hobby.

The theory here is that gamers who previously would have left roleplaying altogether when they got bored with D&D were kept around by various OGL offerings. The sheer variety of stuff available and the fact that the rules of many OGL variants were close enough to D&D that they were easy to pick up kept these gamers in family. In many cases this led folks back round to D&D, ultimately offering WotC income they would have lost. I'm sure there are folks who fit this pattern. What we don't know is if the number of them is statistically significant.

Without the OGL WotC would have had no talent pool for recruitment.

It is certainly true that the OGL created a pool of people who garnered a lot of experience working with the D&D rules. That idea that without the OGL WotC would have had difficulty finding talented designers to hire is pretty ludicrous though. The industry has always had more designers than it knew what to do with and TSR and WotC after them never had any difficulty finding talent. Those D&D books that came out for 25+ years before the OGL didn't write themselves.

The OGL made WotC money.

I think this is the most highly debatable belief of the open gaming advocates. The argument from the beginning has been that the OGL would help WotC sell their core books and the PHB in particular. I must admit I always found this idea dubious. It is entrenched gamers--folks have PHBs in other words--who buy third party products. Were there people who bought D&D core books so they could play Dragonstar or Broncosaurus Rex? Maybe a few but there is not proof that this happened to any great degree. When complete OGL variant games like Mutants & Masterminds hit the market, this clouded things even further. If you like M&M, I've got plenty of books to sell you and none of them require you to own or even be familiar with D&D.

You can argue that third party products kept people playing D&D when otherwise they would have moved on to another game and I think that's a fairly reasonable assertion. The question is whether the revenue generated by those people was enough to offset the money spent by D&D fans on third party products? Again, evidence is lacking. What we do know if that at the height of the d20 boom, an enormous number of books were sold to D&D fans and WotC saw not one cent of the revenue generated. Green Ronin alone sold books in the hundreds of thousands. Now add in Malhavoc and FFG and Atlas and Necromancer and Privateer and Goodman and how many books are we talking about (never mind the booming business of PDFs)? People love to say that WotC has no real competition in the RPG field, but I think it's easy to see how the aggregate effect of the OGL might be perceived as detrimental to WotC's bottom line.

For the folks at WotC trying to figure out a strategy for open gaming, that is a serious decision. They have to weigh the sales of well over a million books to their fans under a royalty free license vs. a bunch of theories that claim this was of benefit to them but have never been tested by real market research. Then there are the PR implications and the possibility of market fragmenation to worry about. It's a tough spot to be sure and the longer this drags out the more difficult it becomes.

I've said before that I was surprised that WotC was going to continue with open gaming in the 4E era. If they come through with the GSL and open gaming in some form continues for D&D, great. If they are rethinking their strategy and they do decide to make 4E closed, I wouldn't blame them either. The OGL has indeed been good to me, but WotC doesn't owe me or any other publisher anything more.

 

[xechnao]

Things to consider.

 

[Delta]

It's not the statement I want to talk about but the ensuing debate. What I found fascinating was the almost religious zeal of open gaming advocates. Over and over people would assert highly debatable things not only as facts, but also facts so obvious that a drunk blind man on an acid trip could see them...


You can argue that third party products kept people playing D&D when otherwise they would have moved on to another game and I think that's a fairly reasonable assertion. The question is whether the revenue generated by those people was enough to offset the money spent by D&D fans on third party products? Again, evidence is lacking.

Of course, Chris has his own religious axe to grind, too. In the past he's blogged about being aggrieved that the d20 System boom pushed some of his alternative game systems off store shelves.

I'd be happy to concede most of the initial points, I don't think he's picked strong arguments to respond to, except for the last one. The Adkinson/Dancey philosophy that generated OGL was entirely about keeping gamers within the system, so new playgroups could form & reform easily (plus watching all the network effects of GPL; plus, as I hear the rumor, explicitly preventing WOTC from closing it back up in the future).

But there's a big logical gap here that WOTC would need to "offset the money spent by D&D fans on third party products". It's not a zero-sum game. 3rd-party purchases are not losses to WOTC -- as Dancey said from day 1, those were simply products that WOTC wasn't going to make anyway. In fact, the whole point was to offload products like adventures that a line needs to look "supported", but which are intrinsically unprofitable to WOTC (per Dancey quotes in 2000). So if the Pramas assumption is that 3rd-party sales are losses to WOTC, Dancey was quoting sales figures in 2000 saying that they weren't.

 

[catsclaw]

It's worth pointing out that Monte Cook disagrees with most of the points raised above.

 

[Ydars]

I think the zeal, religious or otherwise, was not solely the province of those of us in the Pro-OGL camp. I saw a fair amount on both sides.

There are valid parts to both camps' viewpoints but I would like to state here that I was firmly anti-OGL until I saw how other companies (like Mongoose) began to adopt it and the difference it seemed to make in the relationship and respect shown between company and players that was completely absent in AD&D/TSR days.

I was one of those convinced that OGL was a WoTC inspired monster designed to devour all the other gaming systems. And it was; but the game was so well designed (by the standards of the day) that it almost made all the other system obselete overnight, except those games whose design conceits were completely different. But for vanilla, High Fantasy, I have rarely payed another game since 3.5E emerged.

I was not actually arguing about the past in my original post; I think OGL is MUCH more important in the 4E era than it was in 3E because of how fractured D&D could become given the very mixed reception that 4E has got so far. I LOVE 4E but I know that if it stumbles, then the whole hobby suffers. I think OGL would allow other people's visions of the D&D world and mechanics to temper those of WoTC and alllow more people to partake of the great game than would otherwise be the case.

 

[xechnao]

It's worth pointing out that Monte Cook disagrees with most of the points raised above.

Now they will have to face D&D from the outside. Will they form some kind of agreement and support some kind of a Gleemax alternative?
Or will each one of them try to capitalize on the name he has made during the OGL period?
I think it is for their best the option number 1 -at least for the long run.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Of course, Chris has his own religious axe to grind, too. In the past he's blogged about being aggrieved that the d20 System boom pushed some of his alternative game systems off store shelves.

Having a different opinion doesn't make it religious, I think he was more irritated reading statements that stated the OGL was the reason D&D was saved--a lot of people are speaking about theories than responding to actually proven facts. He even conceedes that Wizards themselves don't have enough accurate facts.

But there's a big logical gap here that WOTC would need to "offset the money spent by D&D fans on third party products". It's not a zero-sum game. 3rd-party purchases are not losses to WOTC -- as Dancey said from day 1, those were simply products that WOTC wasn't going to make anyway.

You're also making an assumption on it being a zero-sum game. It could be zero, it could be positive, it could be negative. Dancey is making an assumption that may not be accurate. Your ignoring the fact that people might have made decision, having limited disposable income, to purchase a Monte Cook release rather than a WoTC release. That can and does happen.

In fact, the whole point was to offload products like adventures that a line needs to look "supported", but which are intrinsically unprofitable to WOTC (per Dancey quotes in 2000). So if the Pramas assumption is that 3rd-party sales are losses to WOTC, Dancey was quoting sales figures in 2000 saying that they weren't.

One thing to remember too is that the OGL was released the same year the new game came out. Like Mr. Pramas says, there were a lot of initial sales because 3e was released. I'd rather see what sales were like in the subsequent 8 years. There were also not a lot of OGL products released at that time. So Ryan's figures might have changed.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I agree with Pramas that it's a lot of debatable theory, and I'm sympathetic to the fact that big companies are nervous around anything that's debatable.

But, like others have said, entertainment isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like buying a TV where if I choose a Magnavox, then Panasonic loses a sale. It's like tonight I rent and watch a DVD if there's something I want to watch available -- otherwise I don't. And if there are multiple DVDs I want to watch then eventually I get around to watching them.

Likewise, I don't not buy Heroes of Battle because I'd rather buy Freedom City -- I don't buy it because it's not interesting. If it were interesting, I'd buy it AND Freedom City.

I figure the presence of 3rd party publishers has kept me more heavily involved than I otherwise would be. Instead of skipping to some other game system I've stayed around and purchased the Spell Compendium and various hardcover splats for D&D to support my game set in Ptolus, and using modules published by Necromancer and Goodman Games. If it weren't for them I'd likely be running Call of Cthulhu's Mountains of Madness -- and then I wouldn't be buying any WotC books.

 

[hossrex]

After all those misinterpreted quotes during this long few months of heavy anticipation, which let to giant debates and a few arguments, all simply because a few people read a quote wrong... after all those misinterpreted quotes came to nothing...

Its still happening?

Goodness. I recommend a deep breath, and a good solid dose of patience. While I agree EN World comment might have *SOME* minuscule influence over rules/fluff structure of 4E, its input/complaints/griping will certainly have no influence what so ever over something as business oriented as the OGL. Wizards will do what Wizards thinks best benefits Wizards.

This is an important distinction, because some of us are typing in a manner that reads like an aneurysm in progress over what'll most likely be a misinterpreted quote regarding a subject Wizards has no interest in outside opinions on. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what some people are writing here. Its probably likely.

Notice that at least I'm allowing for the possibility that I don't understand everything thats going on in your head that leads you to pick apart every syllable in every sentence WoTC releases.

Many of us aren't stopping to consider that possibility. Many of us read a quote and take great offense (or read someone else that has taken great offense to a quote), without bothering to think "maybe they know more about this then I do".

No? Oh well. It was just a thought.

 

[JohnRTroy]

But, like others have said, entertainment isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like buying a TV where if I choose a Magnavox, then Panasonic loses a sale. It's like tonight I rent and watch a DVD if there's something I want to watch available -- otherwise I don't. And if there are multiple DVDs I want to watch then eventually I get around to watching them.

I think you're making a few assumptions about Game Theory. Entertainment in the large sphere might not be considered a "zero-sum" game, but like I said elsewhere, it can be postive, zero, or negative. Your experience regarding entertainment is not indicative of others. People do have budgets and have to make sacrifices.

We have to make a few economic assumptions, and this is based on public statements by TSR, Wizards, and people who were there like Harold Johnson, Gary Gygax, other TSR and wizards staffers.

1) There is a limited market for RPGs. New customers join and old customers retire.

2) The more choice there is in the market, the more competition there is.

3) Assuming competition is equal, less money gets to each player (the company selling products) the more items are out there there is.

4) Competition is not always equal since we are dealing with a subject product (entertainment), so people will gravitate to the best product that fits their needs and desires.

But, assuming there is a limited market, players can't get everything. Even if they like say the output of the top 8 publishers, they may be able to afford only the top 4. Thus, choices are made. This is where the game theory comes into play. You can only get so much.

And you factor in the following facts.

1) TSR introduced self-competition with campaign worlds in the 1990s, so they (and Wizards) have experience with what happens when you introduce too much choice to a very limited market.

2) The d20 glut is similar to the above situation, too much product, not enough consumers, with the added negative that the extra money doesn't go to Wizards.

3) The OGL ads an interesting twist as it allows "free" competition, such as SRDs on-line. The core books are the bulk of Wizards sales. Anything that threatens sales of the core books is something that could hurt their bottom line.

Mr. Pramas isn't saying one way or another, he's saying Wizards has to take all of this into account. And lets remember that what might be ideal for us may not be ideal for a company to make a profit. What good is "good will" if your bottom line isn't being met. The OGL certainly benefits the consumer and the third-parties a lot more than it may benefit WoTC.