Theories/Opinions on WotC's Plan

[Grazzt]

My big theory lately is that WotC is gathering back in all it's scattered licenses as best as they can in an effort to present the most attractive package possible to a potential buyer. I think D&D might well be going on the market soon.

First thing I thought of actually when I heard all the stuff with the licenses. I've worked for quite a few companies in the past, and when its time to sell, first think ya do is slap a new coat of paint on the place and get your 'ducks all in a row' to impress the buyer.

 

[Odhanan]

Because I do think it matters where alternate material comes from. My home campaign uses materials from many 3rd-party sources that wouldn't be available if there was no OGL. Things like From Stone to Steel and The Complete Guide to the Fey. I like a grittier game with a more folkloric feel that what WotC seems interested in producing. Therefore, cutting the OGL is removing a major source of inspiration for me. For my money, the Tome of Horrors books are more useful than the later WotC monster books. Removing the OGL would remove these sorts of products, too. Frost and Fur is, IMHO, a better product than Frostburn.

If I buy into a new edition, I want to be able to buy adventures as well. I might not run them, but I enjoy gleaning ideas from them. I recently purchased a new WotC module, and I absolutely hate the format. The module breaks the encounters into areas and tactical encounters, and essentially wants you to flip the pages back & forth to use the sections as needed. Horrible. They assume the use of a map for every combat encounter.....and the tactical parts read like you're playing DDM instead of D&D. Blech. Nice map, though.

So, without the OGL, who do I go to for adventures? Right now, my main choices are Dungeon, Necromancer Games, and Goodman Games. Dungeon will soon be gone, and without the OGL, neither Necromancer or Goodman are likely to support a new edition.

When 3.X came out, WotC got my money mainly through the Core Books and the other early releases. When 3.5 came out, I saw no incentive whatsoever to switch over; you can run 3.5 adventures perfectly well using the 3.0 ruleset. I don't like the weapon size rules (Monte Cook's AE does it better), the minis-centric combat system, or the changes to cover & concealment from 3.0. Now, I'm playing a hybrid, using the rules from each edition that I like, plus house rules (including many 3rd-party sourcebook rules). I like minis, and WotC certainly got some cash off me there, but I don't care to have them mandated by the rules....and certainly not by adventure modules!

WotC seems utterly uninterested in producing the type of content that I enjoy, and a non-OGL game means that no one will produce that content. So, what is my incentive to switch to 4e?

Finally, in a free market economy, the only way that a consumer can show his displeasure is by not buying. I think that the OGL is the best thing that happened to D&D since Gygax took paper to pen. I think it is the polar opposite to the policies that T$R took on to counter personal D&D websites back in the day. I think that, while the brand name belongs to WotC, the game itself is larger than that, and is best when the creative efforts of many, many people hear voice....even that initial glut of d20 products contained gems. Even some of the stinkers had a few really good ideas in them.

The essence of what makes D&D worth playing is that we view it as our collective sandbox. That disappears without the OGL.

Therefore, if 4e is non-OGL, I will not buy it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Plus, I love the craft of D&D. I love the relationship there is between designer and user, the craftsman building a tool (a product) for yet another craftsman (the guys using the game around the game table, DM and players). There's something creatively stimulating about it. Crafts need dedicated creators who work out of love for their craft and earn enough to make a living. This is at the opposite of the corporation where individual responsabilities for decision-making become quasi non-existent and the craftsman becomes just one of the mindless wheels of the "system" for lack of a better word.

I support craftsmen who love the game. The OGL allows these craftsmen to create d20 works I'll enjoy and use to bring forth my own works, my own take on the craft. Ergo, I'll continue to support the OGL.

I don't want to support a mindless system packaging RPG products like Mars bars anymore. That ended a few days ago with emotional disgust. Now I'm not that emotional about it. I understood at last why I was angry. That's not the usual rant. Taking this for the 'usual ranting of a geek' would be grossly underestimating my reaction, and those of a lot of fans around us, I think.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This thread is full of people trying to turn their own gaming preferences into industry trends.

Heh. I wish I could do that.

But isn't the free market economy all about consumers trying to make industry trends out of their desires -- be it tuna with less dolphin in it, cheaper insurance, or a game better suited to their style?


RC

 

[buzz]

Why? It shouldn't be too hard to find a buyer for it, it's arguably "tapped out" for the time being in terms of what Hasbro can do significantly with the brand to generate big revenue. The movies have been tried, and they flopped. The MMORG has been tried and it flopped.

I can certainly see some guy at Hasbro thinking that "hey, someone else can have a go at this D&D business; we haven't been able to make it make any big money."

It just seems to me that D&D, as a brand, is still too valuable. And I'm not sure why Hasbro would sell D&D but not WotC as a whole. I mean, why sell the RPG brand that p0wns the market, but keep Star Wars d20 and d20 Modern?

Either Hasbro wants to be in the RPG and minis market or they don't. If they do, selling off earth's most popular RPG seems counterproductive. If they don't, why hold on to WotC? Just for MtG? And we haven't even mentioned the novels, which regularly top the NYT bestsellers list. Announcing the DI doesn't really square with preparing to sell either, does it?

I dunno, I just don't see it. I'm sticking with the assumption that WotC is simply consolidating their assets in order to regain some of the profit they've been sharing with licensees.

 

[EditorBFG]

It just seems to me that D&D, as a brand, is still too valuable. And I'm not sure why Hasbro would sell D&D but not WotC as a whole. I mean, why sell the RPG brand that p0wns the market, but keep Star Wars d20 and d20 Modern?

You know, they could also be selling off their RPG division entirely. That is, if they were selling, which I don't see real evidence that they are, though this kind of consolidation seems like something someone would do.

I think most of this talk of selling is wishful thinking. I think we all just want D&D and the other WotC games to be owned by a smaller company that won't be pressuring for greater and greater profits with quite as much vigor as Hasbro seems to. No one wants some soulless mega-corporation to control the future of their hobby.

 

[helium3]

Why? It shouldn't be too hard to find a buyer for it, it's arguably "tapped out" for the time being in terms of what Hasbro can do significantly with the brand to generate big revenue. The movies have been tried, and they flopped. The MMORG has been tried and it flopped.

I can certainly see some guy at Hasbro thinking that "hey, someone else can have a go at this D&D business; we haven't been able to make it make any big money."

Hasbro has no control over the movies. The rights to make them were sold long long ago in the TSR days. That's why they sucked so badly.

Also, a lot of these predictions/conspiracy theories are predicated on the idea that Dungeon and Dragon Magazines were lucrative businesses that were cutting in on WOTC's market share. Are we really sure they were that profitable and succesful as a product? I'm not so sure.

 

[buzz]

I think we all just want D&D and the other WotC games to be owned by a smaller company that won't be pressuring for greater and greater profits with quite as much vigor as Hasbro seems to.

For the record, I don't really have any problem with Hasbro. I think whatever supposed freedoms a smaller company could offer would be offset by commensurate disadvantages.

Also, a lot of these predictions/conspiracy theories are predicated on the idea that Dungeon and Dragon Magazines were lucrative businesses that were cutting in on WOTC's market share. Are we really sure they were that profitable and succesful as a product?

Well, they were obviously not cutting in on WotC, as ultimately WotC shared in their profits. I think the question is, how profitable were they, and how much more profitable does WotC's market research (and it's a no-brainer that they did do research before making this decision) show the DI to be in comparison.

I'd imagine that the savings on distribution costs of a printed periodical is significant. That alone might make up for the (very likely) smaller subscriber base they'll have for the DI.

The question in the long run is whether eliminating their presence on mainstream magazine racks will be a net loss.

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't think the OGL is here to stay (and despite even the authors claims to the contrary I have a hard time beleiveing that some team of lawyers could not overturn it). Again, despite claims to the contrary, I think the vast majority will migrate to 4E. If 4E is significantly different mechanics-wize from 3.5 - and I think it will be - then 3.5 OGL content becomes virtually worthless to them.

Describe to me any single way that 4e could be significantly different from 3.5 that I couldn't release a new spell that was compatible with 4e. Significant changes are insufficient. 4e would have to be radically different in order to invalidate using the 3.5 SRD completely. Radical like, no str/dex/con/int/wis/cha or stats become 1-100 based. No classes/levels. In fact, the only real way to do it would be to use trademarked terms in the character statistics. My GlyndolWarrior has a Buler number of 17. Is that D&D any more?

With projects such as OSRIC and 4c Basic (formerly known as FASERIP) already backed by PDF makers, I find it hard to believe you could distill out the 4e changes with little effort.

 

[Reynard]

With projects such as OSRIC and 4c Basic (formerly known as FASERIP) already backed by PDF makers, I find it hard to believe you could distill out the 4e changes with little effort.

I have this wierd love/hate thing with OSRIC. On the one hand, I love 1E AD&D and the idea of creating soemthing cool with it that people other than my suual game group can enjoy is just awesome (I used to wrk for S&S/WW a few years ago, for those who don't know). On the other hand, though, I am a big believer in IP and crerator's rights and the idea that you can twist the OGL to essentially steal 1E for your own use seems somehow wrong.

I guess if I knew that EGG himself gave OSRIC the thumbs up I'd be a bit less conflicted: I am in the process of a post-apocalyptic sci-fantasy using 1E rules right now that has more in common with the CRPG Fallout than Gamma World, and I'd love the opportunity (once it is done) to release it as a PDF with a clear conscience.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

My GlyndolWarrior has a Buler number of 17. Is that D&D any more?

Heh heh. Definitely the quote of the thread.