Pramas on the OGL

[Yair]

It's always interesting hearing from the high-up folks.

I suspect the OGL has overall helped WotC sales, and I think it helped its' products quality by providing more talent and encouraging them to make productws that were better than their competitor's (even if they didn't really compete economically). However, I wouldn't bet my life on it.

What I do know is that the OGL has been good to me, as a consumer. It provided me with producats that I would never have seen otherwise - from Midnight to tiny Philip Reeds pdfs. It allowed me to feel connected to a community, and know that I at least have the option of publishing D&D stuff legally without WotC or anyone else having a say about it. I just don't want to go back to pre-OGL days.

But I've resigned myself to the fact that I will. Whether the above quote means what it the conspiracy theorists think or not, it seems clear to me at this point that the limitations of the GSL will not allow me the freedom I had under the OGL, or allow me to purchase a new Blue Rose (based on 4e stuff). At this point I doubt if the new GSL would even allow me to publish anything non-commercially.

My personal solution to the dilemma is to make/purchase an OGL game taking the best elements (IMHO) from all the various variants, 4e included. That's still far, far in the future, however.

 

[xechnao]

The man believed what he wrote...

How can you be so sure?

plus, as I hear the rumor, explicitly preventing WOTC from closing it back up in the future

There are two kinds of interests around this story regarding the industry.
Personal professional interests.
Wotc interests.
They are not the same. Do all these people have a contract with Wotc for life?

 

[Lizard]

Would 3e have been a success without the OGL?

Certainly. It's a great system in and of itself, and the D&D brand name is nothing to sneeze at.

Would it have been AS GREAT a success? Ay, there's the rub...

I'd like to see some figures showing the OGL took sales away from WOTC. WOTC did not/could not produce books at the same rate as several dozen other publishers. I bought every core book WOTC producted (by 'core' I mean 'not setting based or modules -- rules, dammit, rules!') and still have a bookcase -- that's case, not shelf -- or two filled with D20 product. If I hadn't been spending that money on third party D20 products, I'd have been spending it on something else NOT produced by WOTC. The fact that WOTC could stamp 'official' on their books gave them a serious edge; you might or might not be able to use Quintessential Elf in your game, but you could almost certainly use Races Of The Wild. I think that third party publishers competed with each other much more than with WOTC directly.

The "sells PHBs" concept was, I think, a bit of a red herring by Dancey to slide it past Hasbro execs; even a moment's thought would lead you to realize you can only sell a PHB once to a customer, and that the vast majority of people playing any OGL or STL based game would already have bought a PHB even if there was no OGL, because D&D is still the leading game system out there. (IOW, the number of people who bought PHBs solely to play a non-WOTC game is pretty darn small.) I think the main benefit was extending the 'play life' of the game, and making WOTC supplements useful for those not playing D&D. (M&M is a bit of an outlier here, but it's a pretty late stage game). Anyone playing Dragonstar or Conan can adapt WOTC products with relatively little work (more work for the latter, I admit). The "Well, I don't need it now, but I might be able to use it later..." meme can also be a powerful deciding factor in a purchase. If it seems likely my gaming group will stay in the "D20 Space", then, any WOTC book I buy *might* be useful later -- more likely than a White Wolf book or a GURPS Book, in any event.

It is also interesting to consider that almost any pseudo-open license for 4e will focus competition on the areas most likely to cannibalize WOTC sales -- splats, modules, and sourcebooks. Spycraft, Conan, et all most likely didn't pull people from D&D -- people switch games all the time. It's not like there's not plenty of competing systems out there. Once a group says, "Let's leave D&D for a while", there's no lack of other options. The question is, will those options keep people clost to WOTC, or push them away? D20 based games kept them 'close', and allowed the sale of ancillary products -- miniatures, dungeon tiles, and supplements for 'idea mining'. Under the OGL/STL, WOTC could 'lose' people from D&D but still keep them in a tight orbit, so that when they swtiched again, they would be more likely to go back to D&D. Under the presumed GSL, once they leave 4e, they will head off to alien systems -- and perhaps more importantly, all third party creativity and effort will be focused on the pure D&D supplement market, directly competing with WOTC. AEG producing Spycraft and Spycraft supplements doesn't compete, directly, with D&D supplements; AEG producing monster/magic/setting books, does.

Lastly, having the 'best and brightest' of the current crop of designers making products which interlock with your game, instead of working on their own systems, is a wonderful way of subverting the competition. If the 4e GSL is restrictive, we will be seeing the next Mearls, Baker, etc, 'doing their own thing' instead of turning their talents towards building the 4e network. For collectors of games (like me), this is a plus; for the industry as a whole, and for WOTC in particular...not so much.

 

[Voadam]

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

From his blog.


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.

[/COLOR]

OK so there are these 3rd party D&D books that WotC doesn't get money directly from their sales.

Is this good or bad for the owner of D&D?

Does WotC lose out in opening up more options for D&D players is the core question I believe.

Did these sales lower the number of D&D book sales? If so then that is a negative for WotC.

If these products were not available would people have spent money on non-D&D alternatives? If so then OGL was not a negative for WotC.

If these products were not available would people have kept their money? If so then OGL was not a negative for WotC.

Did these sales of D&D materials support D&D by making people happier to play D&D with them or lead to more sale of WotC D&D stuff? If so then OGL was a benefit for WotC.

It seems to boil down to a question of which is better for WotC, being in a monopoly position of supplying all directly D&D stuff but having less D&D stuff out there, or having others who are not the market leaders produce stuff that supports the D&D game.

 

[catsclaw]

There are two kinds of interests around this story regarding the industry.
Personal professional interests.
Wotc interests.
They are not the same. Do all these people have a contract with Wotc for life?

Just to be clear, you're saying those pushing for an open license, including those working for Wizards of the Coast, are doing it out of self-interest despite it being bad for Wizards of the Coast?

There are two flaws in this argument. The first is obvious: it's an ad hominem attack. Who they are might influence the argument they make, but it certainly doesn't change the validity of that argument.

The second flaw is more subtle. You're begging the question. By arguing there are two interests--personal and WotC--you're already assuming they're necessarily opposed. And if the personal interests are served by an open license, you're implying WotC's interests are served by a closed license. If anything, the basic argument has been that an open license is good for both WotC and third-party publishers. And for largely the same reasons: keeping people in the hobby, keeping people playing d20 systems, and growing the size of the market.

Now you can argue with those contentions--and some people have, including Chris Pramas--but you can't just start by assuming they're false.

 

[catsclaw]

The man believed what he wrote...

How can you be so sure?

Oh, and arguing that Ryan Dancey was lying when he was proselytizing the OGL because he was angling for freelance work after he left Wizards of the Coast is both implausible and rather insulting.

 

[xechnao]

Oh, and arguing that Ryan Dancey was lying when he was proselytizing the OGL because he was angling for freelance work after he left Wizards of the Coast is both implausible and rather insulting.

Just to be clear, you're saying those pushing for an open license, including those working for Wizards of the Coast, are doing it out of self-interest despite it being bad for Wizards of the Coast?

There are two flaws in this argument. The first is obvious: it's an ad hominem attack. Who they are might influence the argument they make, but it certainly doesn't change the validity of that argument.

The second flaw is more subtle. You're begging the question. By arguing there are two interests--personal and WotC--you're already assuming they're necessarily opposed. And if the personal interests are served by an open license, you're implying WotC's interests are served by a closed license. If anything, the basic argument has been that an open license is good for both WotC and third-party publishers. And for largely the same reasons: keeping people in the hobby, keeping people playing d20 systems, and growing the size of the market.

Now you can argue with those contentions--and some people have, including Chris Pramas--but you can't just start by assuming they're false.

Woa...hey, I am not assuming anything here. I just mentioned, that I cant accept without doubt, as a fact of reality, whatever people are saying, when things could be also working out in different ways too -by my POV and experience. I have the right to say so, no?

 

[SSquirrel]

I can accept what Dancey told us for one simple reason, he had all the books an could tour TSR's warehouses, I could not. That other people who worked at TSR disagreed w/his views doesn't matter to me much b/c a)I've never seen a link to their disagreements so I can't read both and compare and b)did they look at all the financial information as well or is it all just based on "how they felt things were running"?

 

[Seanchai]

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

That was over two years ago. What does he think now?

Seanchai

 

[catsclaw]

That was over two years ago. What does he think now?

Actually, in his very next column he discusses his predictions for the future. Including:

• 4e to be announced in 2007, and launch in 2008
• Wizards rethinking the OGL
• Companies continuing to support 3.5
• The need for a new edition to be "something that's truly innovative and honestly improves the play of the game"

Given how right he is in the particulars, I'd assume his opinion on the OGL hasn't changed. And he says in that column "The smartest thing they can do for their own good is to make 4th Edition open, so that it can get a lot of support. Otherwise, suddenly the OGL works against them rather than for them."