Pramas on the OGL

[Nellisir]

Perhaps for you again. But for the mass market this quickness path could only be if it was in a market environment that it somehow could make for all extra compromise it comes with. If it cant it simply will be invalid.

I have no idea what this means. Is it a word puzzle?

 

[xechnao]

I have no idea what this means. Is it a word puzzle?

Henry describes the opening of a relatively quicker or shorter path. I say that this will only be quicker if the opening does not create more difficult ground in the whole area -due to debris- that will get you more tired and thus have you to stop for longer a rest.

 

[hossrex]

So far, I've seen no one from WOTC say that. Links?

The fact that they're considering dropping the OGL proves it wasn't as successful as you're suggesting, of else they wouldn't be considering it.

I would be interested in seeing your facts backed up somehow.

Erik Mona, over at the paizo boards had a good laugh at others who were suggesting that there was a lot of high paid individuals involved in the WotC community. Follow the link for the quotes.

It seems like common sense that a multimillion dollar corporation is run by individuals who receive a relatively high salary. I never said how much (I never said more then "many (many) dollars").

I don't think its unreasonable to say "well paid people are making decisions". You and I may disagree about what constitutes "well paid", but thats besides the point.

This describes me fairly well. I buy a number of RPG books fairly regularly. I currently only play D&D and buy things for my D&D game.

You're prescribing your own buying habbits on top of the rest of the market. I'm suggesting that the average ENworld DnD player isn't necessarily the average DnD player, and especially isn't necessarily the typical DnD consumer.

No. If they produced books that didn't suit someone's needs, they would not buy the book and instead spend the money elsewhere. Bad books are bad books. Why would I buy a crappy book when I could instead spend my money on anything else? Poor development and/or making books that don't fit the niche of your interest are the most common reasons money isn't spent on WotC products. That isnt' money lost by the OGL.

Go to the average gaming shop in the average middle American town, and tell me whether its easier to find a game for Dungeons and Dragons, or any other specific game (gurps, World of Darkness, etc). After so many years of successful branding, Dungeons and Dragons continues to do well partially on name alone. A reasonably well mannered player will always be able to find a Dungeons and Dragons campaign to play in, so Dungeons and Dragon campaigns can always be found relatively easily.

Try finding a gurps game open to new players in my local California town of 50,000 people. Can't be done.

You have no proof for that. In fact there are lots of proof that they've benefited from it. And using capitals and asterisks won't make your statements into arguments.

For your supposition to make any sense, it would require that WotC was run by people who are taking extra care in making the decision of whether they wanted to continue making large sums of money, or not. The sheer fact that this is an issue proves that it isn't necessarily as profitable as you're suggesting.

Unless you think WotC doesn't have a clue what its doing, which judging by their past success, I find dubious.

You know, that works both ways...

Except that I've constantly said I don't know whats best for WotC. The only definitive statement I've made this whole time is that WotC will make the decision thats best for WotC. You're suggesting that they're going to make a very obviously recognizable mistake, and lose large sums of money.

I'm saying "its probably more complicated then you realize".

Am I wrong?

Is WotC run by idiots?

Maybe.

But considering how successful they've been over the last fifteen years, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "probably not".

I can, and still do, because Not only my table, but many other DMs who frequent these forums, as well as the creator of the OGL, have said that the OGL's purpose was not to "help gamers" but to help WotC.

Respectfully... a things intent is meaningless compared to its actualization. It doesn't matter what it was for, if it didn't operate as intended it should be reconsidered.

 

[AZRogue]

I don't find it at all difficult to understand that WotC, a company comprised of many individuals, each with their own opinions and prejudices, might have many people who don't fully understand the impact of the OGL on gaming. Some of them might have thought it through and come to a conclusion while others might only think about the concept itself, and not its ramifications, and come to a different conclusion. The fact that they're a large(ish) company doesn't mean that they can't make a mistake, or that the people in charge might not fully understand the way their own market works. They have the DnD brand name behind them and the market will forgive a bit of error because of that. What we do know is that there are WotC staffers that do, indeed, believe in the OGL, which I think is hopeful.

More importantly, though, I wanted to say that hossrex's user name calls to mind the image of a sour potato. Not sure why, but I think it may be critical to this debate. Discuss.

 

[BryonD]

The fact that they're considering dropping the OGL proves it wasn't as successful as you're suggesting, of else they wouldn't be considering it.

It doesn't prove that by any stretch.


All it says is that they think that for current circumstances (which now includes an established base of open 3E and 3rd party support) a different choice may be better than was then.

 

[Lizard]

The fact that they're considering dropping the OGL proves it wasn't as successful as you're suggesting, of else they wouldn't be considering it.

Ah, proof by inference.

There are other possibilities:
a)They wish to better control brand identity.
b)Their new business model, centered on Gleemax/DDI, doesn't need the brick&morter hobby market to grow.
c)(Most likely) Out-of-touch executives are, like you, going by 'gut instinct' (We GIVE stuff away? How does THAT work?) and are ignoring facts.

Or, basically, you have nothing 'official' from WOTC which says "We lost money on the OGL" -- you just decided that was true, and then you get angry at anyone who says it isn't -- even if the ones who say it isn't ARE quoting people with the inside knowledge to know.

Got it.

Go to the average gaming shop in the average middle American town, and tell me whether its easier to find a game for Dungeons and Dragons, or any other specific game (gurps, World of Darkness, etc). After so many years of successful branding, Dungeons and Dragons continues to do well partially on name alone. A reasonably well mannered player will always be able to find a Dungeons and Dragons campaign to play in, so Dungeons and Dragon campaigns can always be found relatively easily.

And did it occur to you this is due at least in part to the OGL, since the fact this *wasn't* true in the late 90s was the main factor behind the OGL in the first place?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Ah, proof by inference.

There are other possibilities:
a)They wish to better control brand identity.
b)Their new business model, centered on Gleemax/DDI, doesn't need the brick&morter hobby market to grow.
c)(Most likely) Out-of-touch executives are, like you, going by 'gut instinct' (We GIVE stuff away? How does THAT work?) and are ignoring facts.

You are making the same "proof by inference" mistake with your third statement, saying the executives are ignoring facts, compounding it by calling them "out of touch" and that they are "ignoring facts".

I have a lot of criticism towards the attitude than anybody who disagrees with ones viewpoint is "out of touch". I heard a lot of that during the dot-com boom and their statements later turned out to be fatal. I still think a lot of people who push for free and open content are ignoring some basic economic realities that have existed for hundreds of years, and that advertising alone can't pay for everything.

To be honest, most of us are just armchair analysts here. I think Chris Pramas said it best when he pointed out a lot of the pro-OGL people have been making a lot of conjecture without looking at things from a neutral point of view and a critical eye. It's too easy to fall into the viewpoint that ones personal view is the only correct one, that's why I think one should always look at it from the other side's point of view and "only by understanding our opponent's argument can we understand our own".

 

[Lizard]

You are making the same "proof by inference" mistake with your third statement, saying the executives are ignoring facts, compounding it by calling them "out of touch" and that they are "ignoring facts".

I'm not stating it as fact. I'm stating it as conjecture. Compare to the original "The OGL DID cost WOTC money. This is proven by the fact they're thinking of changing it."

I have a lot of criticism towards the attitude than anybody who disagrees with ones viewpoint is "out of touch". I heard a lot of that during the dot-com boom and their statements later turned out to be fatal. I still think a lot of people who push for free and open content are ignoring some basic economic realities that have existed for hundreds of years, and that advertising alone can't pay for everything.

Which is why you don't hear me saying that WOTC should be handing out PHBs on the street corner. The OGL got a lot of criticism from the hard-core 'open source' types because it was very much a commercial license.

To be honest, most of us are just armchair analysts here. I think Chris Pramas said it best when he pointed out a lot of the pro-OGL people have been making a lot of conjecture without looking at things from a neutral point of view and a critical eye. It's too easy to fall into the viewpoint that ones personal view is the only correct one, that's why I think one should always look at it from the other side's point of view and "only by understanding our opponent's argument can we understand our own".

In August 2007, we were told the OGL would still be used.
In December 2007, we were told there'd be the OGL, but it would be "different".
In January 2008, we were told it would be the GSL.
In April 2008, we were told...nothing new, except for vague comments about how the open gaming policy is being "vetted".

There may be explanations beyond "upper management getting antsy", but I am not thinking of any. Your opinons?

(I admit to being a bit disappointed that some of the current 4e designers, who benefitted greatly from the OGL, do not seem to be passionate advocates for it. I am reminded of my mother, who came to America at the age of 13, demanding stricter immigration laws and sneering at people who "act like they just got off the boat". This is a purely personal opinion and has no relevance to whether the OGL was good or not. It might well be that, behind the scenes, they are pushing hard for it. I personally think that when, inevitably, some of the 4e insiders decide to leave the RPG business for greener pastures, we're going to get some interesting behind-the-scenes dirt.)

 

[JohnRTroy]

In August 2007, we were told the OGL would still be used.
In December 2007, we were told there'd be the OGL, but it would be "different".
In January 2008, we were told it would be the GSL.
In April 2008, we were told...nothing new, except for vague comments about how the open gaming policy is being "vetted".

There may be explanations beyond "upper management getting antsy", but I am not thinking of any. Your opinons?

That has nothing to do with what I responded to, or what I was referencing, which was Chris' statement about the OGL. I think the way they've handled the change, whatever they choose, has not be handled well. It doesn't affect the opinion one way or another about the OGL.

(I admit to being a bit disappointed that some of the current 4e designers, who benefitted greatly from the OGL, do not seem to be passionate advocates for it. I am reminded of my mother, who came to America at the age of 13, demanding stricter immigration laws and sneering at people who "act like they just got off the boat". This is a purely personal opinion and has no relevance to whether the OGL was good or not. It might well be that, behind the scenes, they are pushing hard for it. I personally think that when, inevitably, some of the 4e insiders decide to leave the RPG business for greener pastures, we're going to get some interesting behind-the-scenes dirt.)

Not everybody agreed with Ryan Dancey's vision even within WoTC.

But a mistake is attributing the OGL directly for their success. In the 1970s-1990s, you got designers who first worked on other games. The OGL can't be proven to directly be the reason for some of these guys being hired. The first quality is being a good designer and having talent. The OGL is irrelevant in this case. If there wasn't an OGL, they would have been hired based on either their work in Dragon or Dungeon or else from other game design work.

The OGL itself didn't make or break these guys.

 

[Lizard]

Not everybody agreed with Ryan Dancey's vision even within WoTC.

But a mistake is attributing the OGL directly for their success. In the 1970s-1990s, you got designers who first worked on other games. The OGL can't be proven to directly be the reason for some of these guys being hired. The first quality is being a good designer and having talent. The OGL is irrelevant in this case. If there wasn't an OGL, they would have been hired based on either their work in Dragon or Dungeon or else from other game design work.

The OGL itself didn't make or break these guys.

I disagree. It created a vastly larger space for talent to appear in. While it's not possible to prove that they wouldn't have risen through the ranks without the OGL, it's probable at least some of them would have not found their initial, early, work and gone on to doing much more profitable things with their talent.