Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4140550" data-attributes="member: 1054">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.</blockquote>

Verification