Unearthed Arcana - the Rationale behind the OGC

[am181d]

AU isn't mentioned in the OGL statement, but the Paragon classes are, by WotC's own admission, patterned after AU's leveled races.

Didn't these paragon races appear in an issue of Dragon?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, it makes players less portable, and game products less portable. What if I really dig something made with Airships but the spelljammer website decides to use "Aether & Flux" instead.

Not to mention, it makes the margins of d20 companies thinner, which makes it harder to keep good d20 authors writing stuff because it is less worth their while, as companies are forced to compete for the same niche, and thus smaller print runs and worse scale economy.

That's not really what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about from a "fan" standpoint, why is the fragmentation of the marketplace a good thing?

Not only that, the market is fragmented whether publishers like it or not. The alternative to a fragmented market is an oversaturated and jaded market.

It's not a universally good or universally bad thing. As mentioned in the other thread, I am GLAD to have alternatives to the class-based-defense and flaw systems than those presented in UA.

I didn't say "unversal". From a consumer standpoint, though, it's certainly a good thing.

 

[Nifft]

"Fragmentation of the market"? D&D isn't an incompatible computer hardware platform. I can fix many of the "bugs" in new products myself, using my handy "rule 0".

OGL stuff seems nicely like GPL stuff -- those who use it are often skilled enough to fix it, and release the fixes back into circulation. I'm enthusiastic about UA's new systems, just as I'm enthusiastic about new Linux libraries and/or kernel features. If they work, great! If they don't, they won't pollute the idea-pool, because the community is smart and communicates well.

OGL won't fragment for the same reason Linux hasn't fragmented -- it can absorb back into itself anything good that grows out of it... like a giant literary ooze.

-- N

 

[Li Shenron]

Actually, paying more attention to the original post, this was originally posted on ENworld... I only have to find out where now...

Cheers!

If you haven't found it yet, it's Obligatory Unearthed Arcana thread.

 

[Desdichado]

"Fragmentation of the market"? D&D isn't an incompatible computer hardware platform. I can fix many of the "bugs" in new products myself, using my handy "rule 0".

OGL stuff seems nicely like GPL stuff -- those who use it are often skilled enough to fix it, and release the fixes back into circulation. I'm enthusiastic about UA's new systems, just as I'm enthusiastic about new Linux libraries and/or kernel features. If they work, great! If they don't, they won't pollute the idea-pool, because the community is smart and communicates well.

OGL won't fragment for the same reason Linux hasn't fragmented -- it can absorb back into itself anything good that grows out of it... like a giant literary ooze.

Yeah, but that analogy only works for technical products, IMO. Because they're nothing "wrong" per se with the D&D rules, the only reasons to change things are subjective and a matter of taste. A single, grand unified ruleset isn't desirable in this case, because that means a lot of groups are compromising their taste and desires for their game.

 

[diaglo]

Wow. That doesn't make sense on a number of levels. First, you can only use someone else's content using the OGL if they released that content using the OGL, and clearly none of the submissions to Wizards' open call used the OGL. Second, I can't imagine that ANY of those new campaign submissions actually included any new rules anyway, unless someone COMPLETELY missed the point of the submission process. Third, the kind of rules that appear in UA are NOT the kind of rules you'd generally expect from campaign specific rules sets. And fourth, a casual look through the UA will make clear what they took from other sources, and it wasn't that much.

Those issues aside, I think you may be on to something.

but one of the requirements for the submissions for the contest was that the submissions hadn't been in print already... therefore it was OGL in that it was unpublished data. something i have experience with in the peer review journal area of science...it is what people call being scooped..when in fact they just beat you to publication.

second again that was the point of the contest...same but different..new classes, new PrCs, even new races. many of this just screams UA.

third they are rules that would most definitely appear as parts of campaigns...think house rules.

fourth i agree a casual glance will give you that answer. but i'm always one of those conspiracy theory guys. nothing is as simple as it seems.

 

[Particle_Man]

Can anyone give me a rundown of which mechanics/rules are not their own and who are the original Contributors?

Well, the character backgrounds for high-level characters reminded me a lot of traveller character background generation rules, although, sadly, there is no spot on any table for a character to be killed during creation. Wimps.

 

[Henry]

second again that was the point of the contest...same but different..new classes, new PrCs, even new races. many of this just screams UA.

I seriously doubt any of the either one-page or ten-page submissions wasted any space on detailed mechanics, classes, or game concepts, other than describing the world setting and the things that would be in it. If they did, it's no wonder they didn't get picked, since the point of the contest was the sell the concept, not the details.

Looking at the UA info, all of the uncredited stuff seemed to be stuff developed previously in house by either other WotC staff previously or Andy Collins and his gaming crew.

 

[diaglo]

I seriously doubt any of the either one-page or ten-page submissions wasted any space on detailed mechanics, classes, or game concepts, other than describing the world setting and the things that would be in it. If they did, it's no wonder they didn't get picked, since the point of the contest was the sell the concept, not the details.

Looking at the UA info, all of the uncredited stuff seemed to be stuff developed previously in house by either other WotC staff previously or Andy Collins and his gaming crew.

yeah, but with 11000 submissions you know more than just guys like me submitted way too much.

so that's why they didn't want my OD&D ideas.

 

[JPL]

i always suspected they wrote the UA as OGL content b/c most of it wasn't their ideas. but things they harvested from the open call for new campaigns.

And I think that's a pretty strong accusation that's not bolstered by a lot of evidence.