D&D 4E What if 4e (whenever it happens) is not OGL?

[rgard]

I sometimes wonder at the assumption that when 4e comes out people will flock to it. I'm sure it will sell well, but when 3e came out people were desperate for something new and better than what they had. I don't see that level of desperation now, and doubt we will for quite a while. As a result I'm not convinced that, unless 4e is above and beyond 3.x, it will lead to a huge shift in players, unless they keep it OGL and get other publishers to tag along, eventually pulling everybody with them like happened with 3.5.

Not needing 4.0 myself right now. There are way too many 3.5 class combos, PrCs, spells and feats I want to play before I switch over. I own most of what WotC has sold book-wise and minis-wise for 3.5. There are a bunch of 3rd party D20 products I still want to pick up too.

Hence my sig.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Andre]

There have been entirely different game systems that have survived with no connection to D&D whatsoever. There's no reason to believe that OGL games like Mutants & Masterminds and Conan will see the floor drop out from under their popularity with the advent of an entirely different 4e D&D. Thinking otherwise ignores that there is, indeed, a game industry besides D&D. Not much of one, but it's been there for almost as long as D&D itself.

I agree. Do either of the games you mention require the PHB to play? My "predictions of doom" are for the products that supplement the current core rulebooks, not replace them.

There will always be a market for something that's not D&D. Personally, I think that's the fundamental flaw in the original reasoning for the OGL - that by providing other companies a way of producing 3.x compatible products, it would reduce competition for WOTC and, in fact, promote additional sales. That reasoning ignores the fact that D&D is not for everyone and never can be. D&D does one genre very well, other genres to a greater or lesser degree, and some not at all. Products that fill the niches that D&D does not will continue to sell.

 

[Andre]

Well, it's all relative isn't it? I think success for 3rd party OGL publishers post-4E (if 4E is not OGL) would just be retaining the customers they already have. So if they can fill a void for those people, that would be good.

Yep, just surviving will be a success, because most haven't so far. The ones who survive 4E will be the ones who don't depend on 3.x for sales.

 

[EditorBFG]

One of the major companies, such as Necromancer, would put out a game system and do their own OGL. It would become a SERIOUS competitor to D&D.

Extremely doubtful it would offer any serious competition to D&D.

How about if White Wolf did it?

 

[BASHMAN]

They will likely continue to make 3.x edition compatiable products, as those licenses are still perfectly good.

However, if they really want to be 4e compatable, they have to be sneaky.

If the differences between 4e and 3.x are minor, like the difference between 3.5 and 3.0, then they could just make a product totally compatable with 4e, using the 3.5 license. As long as they don't say "Made to be used with 4E" anywhere in the product, then they are not doing anything legal. There is nothing illegal about saying a kobold has a d6 hit points. Saying that kobolds are little yapping dog-men with scaly skin, as they were in 1st edition, however, is IP and would be illegal.

If the differences between 4E and 3.x are huge, like, You must tap 3 mana to attack, and buy a pack of magic cards to level your character, then it would be more difficult, but not impossible. Mayfair games made a line of products called "Role-Aids" 3rd party stuff for AD&D, totally unlicensed-- but by not using any IP, they were in the clear. Similar to what OSRIC is doing today.

 

[BASHMAN]

How about if White Wolf did it?

No, better. Palladium. LOL!

 

[Hussar]

How about if White Wolf did it?

Well, WW did take a stab at it at the beginning of 3e, putting Core Rulebook on the cover of their Sword and Sorcery books. Scarred Lands had a pretty good run, but, in the end, faded away.

If someone is still printing a game with D&D on the cover, everyone else is going to be running WAY in second place barring some colossal stupidity by whoever holds the brand.

 

[RFisher]

When was it ever? An old joke I heard was, "How do you make a small fortune in the RPG industry? Start off with a large fortune."

(^_^) But even if they weren't profitable enough for a big company from day one...I still contend that they are becoming even less so everyday. (^_^)

They can't with the OGL now. That wonderful old code-speak, "compatible with the Xth Edition of the World's most popular Roleplaying Game", is just as useable under any edition, because it doesn't make any direct comparisons, only very veiled implied ones.

It's such a laugh to me that (at least seemingly) without the d20 license a product can't say "the d20 system", but it can say "d20 game". Or the way Osric-based products can call themselves can say "First Edition" but not "AD&D".

(Though I'm not convinced that "compatible with Trademark" isn't a perfectly legal claim sans license. As long as you're clear that you aren't claiming the trademark holder's endorsement or such.)

Not to disparage d20/OGL publishers, but I doubt that most D&D players can name 5 of them. I have to special order them from my LGS because 3rd party stuff doesn't sell well enough for him to stock anything but a few products. My players could not name one 3rd party product that I don't own (or several that I do own), and I have no reason to think that their attitudes are uncommon. Even if 4th edition doesn't catch on, I don't think that 3rd party publishers will fill any void.

My players have some third-party d20 products. (Maybe even some non-d20 products based on the d20 SRD.) Yet, they were still pretty fuzzy on what the presence or absence of the d20 logo on my new True20 book might imply.

...& I don't think that's a problem.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

(Though I'm not convinced that "compatible with Trademark" isn't a perfectly legal claim sans license. As long as you're clear that you aren't claiming the trademark holder's endorsement or such.)

Sure - think about generic medicines. Most of them say "compare to Tylenol" (or whatever) right on the bottle. You can mention a brand name without claiming ownership over it.

Personally, I believe the OGL was a mistake for WotC - they instantly created dozens of competitors for the D&D dollar. I think they had little to no idea that 3rd party publishers would be able to compete for market share with major supplements and worlds.

 

[QLI/RPGRealms]

How about if White Wolf did it?

Without the D&D name on it, nope it wouldn't come close to selling the same numbers.

Hunter