WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[Orcus]

Guys, even if the entire OGL concept were scrapped in it's entirety, WOTC would still likely license out their stuff to third party publishers for a relatively modest fee.

I'm not sure this is true. I shure hope it is. But, for instance, they havent offered me such a license. And I am historically their best and closest third party publisher (other than Paizo). They licensed Tome conetnt to me, etc. And I think over the years we have proven to be excellent partners and caretakers of that content. So if I'm worried, you all should be too.

 

[Orcus]

Relax people. Scott and Linae are good people and probably more worried about all of this then you lot are. It'll be fine.

And if only they were the final decision makers, this would be fine. But I dont think they are. In fact, I know they arent.

 

[AllisterH]

I guess I'm just somewhat disappointed that people can be angry with WOTC for not following an idea that they themselves created.

Why don't SJG/Palladium get the same anger?

 

[SSquirrel]

I guess I'm just somewhat disappointed that people can be angry with WOTC for not following an idea that they themselves created.

Why don't SJG/Palladium get the same anger?

What are SJG and Palladium not following up on? Palladium has had many book ideas over the years that never appeared and we all know how insanely overdue they can be at times, but neither game system has ever been open.

 

[Oldtimer]

So if I'm worried, you all should be too.

When the demon lord is worried, we are worried, Clark.

 

[Henry]

And that the thing I don't get about the OGL praisers. If Wizards didn't have an OGL, whose to say that M&M and Spycraft wouldn't have been created as new games rather than a variation of the OGL. How "innovative" is it to tweak 25% of an existing ruleset rather than coming up with a game from scratch that is not tied down.

I think the OGL actually hurt us because instead of having a heterogenous market with a wider variety we just have a lot of semi-, demi-, quasi-, and psuedo- versions of D&D 3e. Maybe if the license is more restrictive, people will focus on building good games from the ground up and actually create something really innovative.

I'm unsure how to state it more simply, but the theory is that all roads lead back to D&D. The shorter those roads, are, the more frequent the pilgrims make the return trip. The OGL is a way to make those roads shorter.

Personally, I don't think that having a market full of systems with hit points, hits to kill, persistence points, toughness points, strength points, etc. all to mean the same thing is beneficial, nor 40 systems that have 30 different dice mechanics to create the same effect, and the OGL has been one way that cut down on some of those. Heck, just looking at the Warhammer RPG, designed by Chris Pramas and company, incorporated some d20 rules intentionally or unintentionally, and it turned out to be for the better for that game (Half Actions and full actions are the first that come to mind, as are cyclic initiative.)

I also think there's enough evidence among independent games over the years from 1980 to 2000 that building games from the ground up creates unnecessary reinventions, often for the poorer. There's probably scores, maybe hundreds, of different ways to figure initiative in a combat alone, and most of them really create lots of extra work for the end result of "who goes first." I'm all for innovation, but innovation should also allow for people finding a rule mechanic among someone else's game that works REALLY well, and then being able to pull it whole cloth into their own game without having to figure out how to avoid copyright violations, because having to stop just so you can reenvision the wheel to avoid lawsuit can be counterproductive.


Regarding the original post by Ydars: I'm not ready to boycott just because the official word is "no new info." I'm not worried, because if WotC did dump open gaming completely, it would be bad press no matter when they did it. Remember, the first three books aren't the core game any more: they're the first of MANY installments of the core game, and fan support is important to keep the avid hobbyists recruiting new players, because when all is said and done, WotC really doesn't create new players, not in a meaningful amount: Old Players create new players, whether they're introducing them, talking to them, or birthing them.

 

[xechnao]

In addition, several people have disputed that OGL was a significant factor in the revival of RPGs. If this is the case, why have several insiders, present at the WoTC takeover of TSR state that the fractured and competing games systems were behind the 50-70% fall in table-top gaming.

Also, if diversity is good for RPGs then why was the 1990s a real low point; there was a greater diversity of games then that at any other time in the industry. Yet this was when gamers were leaving in droves.

I think this can easily be a misunderstanding among TSR's product lines and ropleplaying games in general. But even in the case what you say is true, how could you know that what has been the answer to the industry's problems was the OGL itself and not rather a fine excuse to provoke interest in the hobby under the specific situation and conditions of that troubled times?

Of course, creating a completely new system, balancing it appropriately, etc is a long, involved and in many cases, a failed task. If you already have a core system to look at, tweak and bend to go w/what you have in mind, it is much faster and chances are, better balanced. I think products like Arcana Evolved and Mutants & Masterminds were both very innovative, yet at their core they are just d20. Why is this such a bad thing?

I do not agree with any of this. Say how was arcana evolved a very innovative game system?

 

[Delta]

That said, I'm somewhat disappointed that fans are threatening a boycott over something that pre-3E NEVER existed until WOTC took a chance.

I'll offer myself as an example. I was an old-school fan who was not playing or buying any D&D pre-3E (i.e., no 2E for me). I came back expressly because of the opportunities I saw in the OGL. I don't buy anything that isn't OGL-supported anymore. Pretty simple for me.

 

[SSquirrel]

They have completely failed to back up these promises so far and have missed every deadline. This has caused many 3PPs to opt not to support 4E and so, by trying to hold onto D&D, WoTC may in fact have played into the hands of Paizo and the other 3PPs who will now fracture D&D gamers into those who go via 3.75E and those who go with 4E. I suspect the former group will now include MANY more gamers than any market research suggests because this scenario could never have been envisaged at the time

I feel compelled to remind that ENWorld is NOT a representative slice of the gaming public. Most gamers don't read boards like ENWorld, I know plenty who still don't even have the internet at home. I don't see how Paizo is going to be pulling hordes of gamers away from 4E, esp when the rules currently show significant power creep over 3.5, requiring lots of tweaking to make encounters and such from all the old 3.5 material people have function at a proper CR level.

Let's say that 80% of all current 3.X gamers move on to 4E. That leaves 20% who either quit gaming, stay with 3.X, transition to other games entirely, switchover to Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. I just don't get what's so compelling about their setting. Considering the number of gamers you hear who refuse to buy anything non-WotC, those people won't buy Paizo, even if they do stay 3.5.

 

[Ydars]

Hooray; some of us have now worked out that the GSL might indeed be in danger; it only took 60 posts!

Now can we please discuss what we can do to affect this decision? If my idea is no good then fine, but can someone please suggest something better?