Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why doesn't WotC open up the Rules Compendium?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5531842" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>1) We don't know how much it would hurt them. They know how much or little OGL content in 3.x hurt them, so they're the ones with the information to make a decision. I would however point out that PF is certainly OGL collateral damage caused to WotC. Losing control of a rather valuable product (effectively) is not good business.</p><p></p><p>2) Not everyone is THAT enamored with 3PPs. Beyond that 3PPs can already produce settings and adventures and accessories of all kinds under the GSL without a problem. I've played D&D for 35 years and probably 97% of my purchases have been from TSR/WotC for rules stuff. </p><p></p><p>3) Well, what is a 'new system'? That's really semantics. Under GSL I can create all kinds of new mechanics as long as I don't redefine existing ones. DEM has a whole setting that is virtually a stand-alone game aside from the obligatory references to PHB content for core rules. Seems like under GSL they basically have what your talking about.</p><p></p><p>4) I play a fair amount of RPGs and know a fair number of players of all stripes from hardcore to totally casual. 99% of them don't know what GSL or OGL are and don't care. It may or may not be important for 'developer mind share', but to the bulk of the community at large this whole issue that is argued so vociferously by the 1% of gamers that are on these forums is irrelevant. They just want to sit down, have some chips and slay monsters.</p><p></p><p>5) They are never going to open up CB and MB for reasons that are largely technical and financial. Certainly not in any future that is likely within the lifecycle of 4e. So this is basically irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>6) Why? It is fine to put these hypotheticals out there, but lets think about this. RC is a $15 book. What's the best they can achieve with that, a $15 book in every gamer's hands. That's nice, but I think they aim for a bit more than that... They want to be able to sell you 10 books. I mean think about, PHB1 is in the hands of practically all 4e players already. On top of that many have other books. Why cede that space to 3rd parties? </p><p></p><p>Honestly, it isn't like I'm at all hostile to the basic "open source commons" kind of concept where everyone is better off if they all share. The question is can that exist in the RPG industry? Is it really better for the industry if everyone is a big happy family and will they all sell more stuff? I'm not really convinced it is.</p><p></p><p>In the IT field there is a vast amount of 'stuff' that people need to do that is the same over and over and over again. Nobody is interested in novelty at the level of the inner guts of software and IT systems. Also each system has increased value when they can interoperate with more other systems. This all encourages sharing. Most of what differentiates one product from another is at the surface layer or is one specific module of technology that has to still fit in with a lot of other vanilla stuff. A commons approach makes a huge amount of sense in this environment.</p><p></p><p>In the RPG game publishing industry the situation is totally different. Customers are looking for novel gaming experiences, or they're looking to continue their existing gaming experiences. If the former then building new stuff on top of existing stuff is mostly just reducing novelty. In the later case why would you want to have your product be open? If you can be the sole supplier of a particular gaming experience that people want to have, that's the way to make money. </p><p></p><p>Games really are not that super hard to develop or write. Not compared to software. Systems can be created in short order, tested, reworked, etc. You can easily steal ideas from other people etc. All of it is going to be boiled down into your particular unique game before it goes out there anyway. Sure, having a d20 system is somewhat handy, but the truth is most games are better off with more genre-specific core systems anyway.</p><p></p><p>Look at the slew of games that were ported to d20. Very few of them had really successful d20 variants. Most were worse games for being ported. The majority of them have either written new core systems or gone back to their original core rules since. The games that people really talk about now? Very few of them are d20 based. </p><p></p><p>The truth is there just isn't that much reason for a talented game design team to base an RPG on d20 unless that type of system is exactly what the game really needs. There's not that much advantage to having systems able to cross material either. You just rarely see someone saying "wow, being able to drop a starship into my wire-fu themed campaign is great!" It could be handy now and then, but the vast majority of the time players are fine with sticking to a genre and reuse of out-of-genre material isn't that strong a draw. For that subset of gamers who DO feel it is a big advantage, there's always GURPS...</p><p></p><p>I guess I'm just not overall terribly convinced that OGL was a great idea and that 4e needs to be covered by it. Ironically one of the main strengths 4e has over PF is that Paizo is involuntarily wedded to OGL forever no matter what. WotC could drop their stuff into any license they want tomorrow. I don't think they're going to give up that advantage anytime soon, even if it could generate a little extra profit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5531842, member: 82106"] 1) We don't know how much it would hurt them. They know how much or little OGL content in 3.x hurt them, so they're the ones with the information to make a decision. I would however point out that PF is certainly OGL collateral damage caused to WotC. Losing control of a rather valuable product (effectively) is not good business. 2) Not everyone is THAT enamored with 3PPs. Beyond that 3PPs can already produce settings and adventures and accessories of all kinds under the GSL without a problem. I've played D&D for 35 years and probably 97% of my purchases have been from TSR/WotC for rules stuff. 3) Well, what is a 'new system'? That's really semantics. Under GSL I can create all kinds of new mechanics as long as I don't redefine existing ones. DEM has a whole setting that is virtually a stand-alone game aside from the obligatory references to PHB content for core rules. Seems like under GSL they basically have what your talking about. 4) I play a fair amount of RPGs and know a fair number of players of all stripes from hardcore to totally casual. 99% of them don't know what GSL or OGL are and don't care. It may or may not be important for 'developer mind share', but to the bulk of the community at large this whole issue that is argued so vociferously by the 1% of gamers that are on these forums is irrelevant. They just want to sit down, have some chips and slay monsters. 5) They are never going to open up CB and MB for reasons that are largely technical and financial. Certainly not in any future that is likely within the lifecycle of 4e. So this is basically irrelevant. 6) Why? It is fine to put these hypotheticals out there, but lets think about this. RC is a $15 book. What's the best they can achieve with that, a $15 book in every gamer's hands. That's nice, but I think they aim for a bit more than that... They want to be able to sell you 10 books. I mean think about, PHB1 is in the hands of practically all 4e players already. On top of that many have other books. Why cede that space to 3rd parties? Honestly, it isn't like I'm at all hostile to the basic "open source commons" kind of concept where everyone is better off if they all share. The question is can that exist in the RPG industry? Is it really better for the industry if everyone is a big happy family and will they all sell more stuff? I'm not really convinced it is. In the IT field there is a vast amount of 'stuff' that people need to do that is the same over and over and over again. Nobody is interested in novelty at the level of the inner guts of software and IT systems. Also each system has increased value when they can interoperate with more other systems. This all encourages sharing. Most of what differentiates one product from another is at the surface layer or is one specific module of technology that has to still fit in with a lot of other vanilla stuff. A commons approach makes a huge amount of sense in this environment. In the RPG game publishing industry the situation is totally different. Customers are looking for novel gaming experiences, or they're looking to continue their existing gaming experiences. If the former then building new stuff on top of existing stuff is mostly just reducing novelty. In the later case why would you want to have your product be open? If you can be the sole supplier of a particular gaming experience that people want to have, that's the way to make money. Games really are not that super hard to develop or write. Not compared to software. Systems can be created in short order, tested, reworked, etc. You can easily steal ideas from other people etc. All of it is going to be boiled down into your particular unique game before it goes out there anyway. Sure, having a d20 system is somewhat handy, but the truth is most games are better off with more genre-specific core systems anyway. Look at the slew of games that were ported to d20. Very few of them had really successful d20 variants. Most were worse games for being ported. The majority of them have either written new core systems or gone back to their original core rules since. The games that people really talk about now? Very few of them are d20 based. The truth is there just isn't that much reason for a talented game design team to base an RPG on d20 unless that type of system is exactly what the game really needs. There's not that much advantage to having systems able to cross material either. You just rarely see someone saying "wow, being able to drop a starship into my wire-fu themed campaign is great!" It could be handy now and then, but the vast majority of the time players are fine with sticking to a genre and reuse of out-of-genre material isn't that strong a draw. For that subset of gamers who DO feel it is a big advantage, there's always GURPS... I guess I'm just not overall terribly convinced that OGL was a great idea and that 4e needs to be covered by it. Ironically one of the main strengths 4e has over PF is that Paizo is involuntarily wedded to OGL forever no matter what. WotC could drop their stuff into any license they want tomorrow. I don't think they're going to give up that advantage anytime soon, even if it could generate a little extra profit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why doesn't WotC open up the Rules Compendium?
Top