Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events

[TheAuldGrump]

I think that most can agree that, whether or not creating the OGL was a good idea, creating it and then abandoning it was a poor one. The OGL created a deep reservoir of good will, but that has now been lost.

Personally, I would not have played as much 3.X if there was no OGL - as I think I have stated I treated the entire OGC library as an enormous smorgasbord. I sampled from many more dishes and treated the section detailing where OGC had been borrowed from as a shopping list. (In particular Swashbuckling Adventures had a list that suited many of my tastes.) Having so much made me greedy for more.

Having that vast, if sometimes ill lit, kitchen broadened the possibilities I could use in my game, and allowed me to give sources to my players.

It meant that 3.X had an enormous stable of writers producing material, and shaping the raw materials in new and interesting ways. The game avoided the same-same feel that some systems have fallen prey to, in part because so many people were trying to do so many different things with it.

I own a good deal of 3.X material, and an even greater amount of OGL material that I used to compliment my D&D games.

I own no 4e material, by WotC or others, but do own Pathfinder and have started, slowly, to broaden my collection with 3PP material created to compliment Pathfinder, as once I collected D20 material. And I find a use for much of the 3PP and WotC material with the new game.

I do not think myself unusual in this, but I do think that WotC has closed off their market by excluding so much from their current license. The horses have escaped and closing the barn door is only going to keep them outside.

The Auld Grump

 

[JohnRTroy]

I think without the OGL, we might not have had 4e. For one thing, who would have designed it? One of the things Wizards has done that has earned ill will from me is to profit from the OGL, then try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

While I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the OGL, assuming that there would be no new designers without the OGL is incredibly shortsighted. Almost all the new hires in the D&D world came from any sort of smaller publisher or fan work. People like Monte Cook, Warren Spector, Ed Greenwood, etc., a lot of them came from either writing for the publications, the fanzines, or working for one of the smaller companies.

Just because Mike Mearls--who is the one who gets brought up the most--got to work with an OGL system it does not mean the OGL itself was a direct influence, and without him we would have nothing. Mearls was lucky enough to work under Monte Cook, who was a popular 3pp at the time with Malhavoc press. It wasn't the OGL that got him, it was his talent and where he worked and what he did.

So, even if 3e didn't have an OGL, based on how game designers ascended to the top in RPG tabletop publishing (now WoTC--although now that the low end of gaming if you take into account computer/video games), it was the talent of the individual and the opportunities of the marketplace that allowed it. If there wasn't a 3e, Mearls might have worked with another competing game system, or worked as a contributor to Dragon and Dungeon and the RPGA.

Saying the OGL is the reason we have a 4e is over-inflating the role of the OGL as well as not paying attention to the past marketplace.

 

[Wicht]

I think that most can agree that, whether or not creating the OGL was a good idea, creating it and then abandoning it was a poor one.

Exactly.

 

[shadzar]

Mike Mearls without him we would have nothing.

Curiosity...is this what that passage is saying?

 

[JohnRTroy]

While I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the OGL, assuming that there would be no new designers without the OGL is incredibly shortsighted. Almost all the new hires in the D&D world came from any sort of smaller publisher or fan work. People like Monte Cook, Warren Spector, Ed Greenwood, etc., a lot of them came from either writing for the publications, the fanzines, or working for one of the smaller companies.

Just because Mike Mearls--who is the one who gets brought up the most--got to work with an OGL system it does not mean the OGL itself was a direct influence, and without the OGL we would have nothing from him. Mearls was lucky enough to work under Monte Cook, who was a popular 3pp at the time with Malhavoc press. It wasn't the OGL that got him, it was his talent and where he worked and what he did.

So, even if 3e didn't have an OGL, based on how game designers ascended to the top in RPG tabletop publishing (now WoTC--although now that the low end of gaming if you take into account computer/video games), it was the talent of the individual and the opportunities of the marketplace that allowed it. If there wasn't a 3e, Mearls might have worked with another competing game system, or worked as a contributor to Dragon and Dungeon and the RPGA.

Saying the OGL is the reason we have a 4e is over-inflating the role of the OGL as well as not paying attention to the past marketplace.

ETA--Fixed a bad typo.

 

[shadzar]

ETA--Fixed a bad typo.

Ok that makes a bit more sense then with the rest of it.

 

[carmachu]

Just because Mike Mearls--who is the one who gets brought up the most--got to work with an OGL system it does not mean the OGL itself was a direct influence, and without him we would have nothing. Mearls was lucky enough to work under Monte Cook, who was a popular 3pp at the time with Malhavoc press. It wasn't the OGL that got him, it was his talent and where he worked and what he did.

So, even if 3e didn't have an OGL, based on how game designers ascended to the top in RPG tabletop publishing (now WoTC--although now that the low end of gaming if you take into account computer/video games), it was the talent of the individual and the opportunities of the marketplace that allowed it. If there wasn't a 3e, Mearls might have worked with another competing game system, or worked as a contributor to Dragon and Dungeon and the RPGA.

Saying the OGL is the reason we have a 4e is over-inflating the role of the OGL as well as not paying attention to the past marketplace.

Dismissing the OGL is under-inflating it. Sure someone else, might MIGHT have come along. But someone else didnt work in the OGL on a product called Iron Heros which one can argue is more akin to a proto-type to 4e then it was to its forebearers.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Dismissing the OGL is under-inflating it. Sure someone else, might MIGHT have come along. But someone else didnt work in the OGL on a product called Iron Heros which one can argue is more akin to a proto-type to 4e then it was to its forebearers.

Prior Evidence proves that it's a lot more likely that even without an OGL there was still a good pool to choose from, as there has always been. You may be able to say Mearls was able to use his prior OGL knowledge to improve the game, but you can't say "without the OGL there would be no 4ed", as there would have been a new edition in the future, or that Mearls would have not come up with the same style of game sans OGL. He could have done it in a fanzine.

The game exists separately from the OGL. The OGL is a simple license, not a philosophy or even a game. D&D exists outside of the OGL. People have been tinkering with the game since 1974. All the OGL does is make it easier to publish, that's pretty much it. Was the OGL a factor, yes? Is the OGL the sole reason 4e is the way it is, I doubt it.

It's a license, not a philosophy or a religion. The creative interest in game design has existed outside of the licenses.

 

[ssampier]

The article was a bit disappointing to me. I was hoping for some real insights and I felt like the author was either holding back information or felt rushed to write the article. All we really learned is that Wizards did not communicate the minature cancellation to their retailers directly.

I see a couple of options why this is:

1) Wizards retailer support is stretched too far and too thin (cutbacks and layoffs can do that)

2) Wizards supports the retail channel only minimally. It sees the future in DI and other electronic products

3) It never occurred to Wizards management to do otherwise

I'm thinking all possibilities could be partially true.

An interesting possibility is that Wizards is finding that it is competing with itself. The true 4e gamer probably has a DI subscription and sees little reason to buy more books. Since Wizards is still making money with paper books it continues to print them, but Wizards is gradually reducing the focus (e.g. a swimming pool with a tiny hole will eventually be empty).

In contrast your Pathfinder fan is probably a little older, having played 3.0/3.5 and other games before and not only prefers books demands them. They either dislike online resources or use them sparingly. Paizo is smart, though, to offer their products digitally for a large discount to capture the "Maybe I'll use it, maybe I won't" crowd.

 

[Imaro]

The article was a bit disappointing to me. I was hoping for some real insights and I felt like the author was either holding back information or felt rushed to write the article. All we really learned is that Wizards did not communicate the minature cancellation to their retailers directly.

I see a couple of options why this is:

1) Wizards retailer support is stretched too far and too thin (cutbacks and layoffs can do that)

2) Wizards supports the retail channel only minimally. It sees the future in DI and other electronic products

3) It never occurred to Wizards management to do otherwise

I'm thinking all possibilities could be partially true.

An interesting possibility is that Wizards is finding that it is competing with itself. The true 4e gamer probably has a DI subscription and sees little reason to buy more books. Since Wizards is still making money with paper books it continues to print them, but Wizards is gradually reducing the focus (e.g. a swimming pool with a tiny hole will eventually be empty).

In contrast your Pathfinder fan is probably a little older, having played 3.0/3.5 and other games before and not only prefers books demands them. They either dislike online resources or use them sparingly. Paizo is smart, though, to offer their products digitally for a large discount to capture the "Maybe I'll use it, maybe I won't" crowd.

Actually, I would argue that the average Pathfinder fan wants online resources and tools that complement (but do not necessarily replace) their gamebooks. I also think Paizo has done a way better job of balancing these two spectrums of their business than WotC has with Gleemax and DDI along with their pulled PDF's.

IMO, WotC continues to split it's fanbase more and more... we had the 3.5 to 4e split... the 4e to 4e essentials split... and now it seems WotC is gearing up to produce a print product/digital subscription model split... and while I realize there are those who overlap in each of these categories... there are still consumers being left behind with each of these divides.

I was one who jumped back onto 4e with the essentials products (hoping to have a self contained game without the need for DDI) and was happy until the announcement of the cancellation of the magic item book. I can only assume they are going to put that info on DDI and I personally do not want to get a subscription for the magic items to flesh out an essentials game, this added to the fact that they haven't updated the old magic items to the rarity scheme they've set up has left me once again dissapointed in WotC... so I am finally out of 4e for good and starting up a Pathfinder game. I honestly don't think WotC is savy enough in the digital department yet to succesfully pull off what they are aiming for (IMO, a fully subscription based rpg with minimal book sales/support that is profitable enough for Hasbro)... but time will tell.