WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[Alzrius]

1) loyal customers have repeatedly reviewed every press-release, stressing their dislike for the majority of the proposed changes.

2) Paizo, listening to those customers, publicly affirms their commitment to continue supporting the existing rules indefinitely.

3) Within days, President/CEO Loren Greenwood who spearheaded the proposed revision steps aside a few scant months before seeing the final version of his pet-project reach market.

4) His replacement (Greg Leeds) "immediately" announces the open-license is being rewritten instead of released in April as announced several months ago.​

Granted, I could be wrong but considering the final version should have already been “at the printer’s” as it were since it was on the verge of being released, any rethinking at this late stage signals a MAJOR change in the works – especially given the coincidental presidential change. Therefore its quite likely Hasbro’s Board noticed the division repeatedly failed to notice fan's reactions to the proposed changes and decided corrective actions was needed.

Hasbro invested far too much in acquiring the D&D brand to casually watch it be irrepairably harmed which is what fan feedback to the press-releases have implied WOULD happen if v4 was released as planned. Therefore it would not suprise me to hear the proposed schedule has been completely scrapped as the design team returns to the drawing board to ensure the end result is fully backwards per customer demand.

This could just as easily herald that the new president is far less enamored of Open Gaming in any form, and has decided to create a license that is even more restrictive...or to simply not have such a license at all. I seriously doubt that the howling of a few fanboys, and the grumbling from some VERY small publishers has had such a massive effect as to oust the president of WotC and replace him with one who is far more loyal to those malcontents.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes. But it also creates additional players in the marketplace. (I would say "additional competitors," but they're not really.) And these additional companies can adversely affect D&D's image (i.e., Book of Erotic Fantasy).

Honestly, I wish people would stop pointing to the BoEF as a book that somehow tarnished D&D's image. I doubt many people are even aware of the book that much, and those who are inclined to kick up a fuss over it don't seem like potential gamers anyway. I've never heard one person say "Well I thought I might try out D&D but then I heard about this 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' and I don't want anything to do with that! No sir!"

Unless you're Tracy Hickman, most people in the industry didn't really have a reaction to it, and no one outside of the industry (that I'm aware of) had a reaction to it at all.

 

[Mistwell]

So let's follow the order of events here.

I say:

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. That's the way of the world now. All it would mean is only the larger companies could afford to purchase a license, and it wouldn't be free anymore. It wouldn't mean an end to all third party support for D&D. And in addition, it would probably mean free third party fan-made stuff would also be OK (at least on an unofficial basis).

Orcus says:

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.

And now, a couple of days later, in reply to someone else, Orcus says:

Becaue you are right. I could do exactly what you say. I could be quiet. I could let Wizards nuke any 4E licensing. Then I could, likely, get permission to do a few products and make a killing.

So what was your point again Clark? You do think WOTC would be willing to license it out to a few of the bigger companies (like Necro), or you don't?

 

[Orcus]

Honestly, I wish people would stop pointing to the BoEF as a book that somehow tarnished D&D's image. I doubt many people are even aware of the book that much, and those who are inclined to kick up a fuss over it don't seem like potential gamers anyway. I've never heard one person say "Well I thought I might try out D&D but then I heard about this 'Book of Erotic Fantasy' and I don't want anything to do with that! No sir!"

Unless you're Tracy Hickman, most people in the industry didn't really have a reaction to it, and no one outside of the industry (that I'm aware of) had a reaction to it at all.

True. It didnt tarnish the image of D&D (maybe a little, but not significantly). BUT it was one of the key catalysts for the restrictions in the d20 STL/Guide on sexuality and other content. So it had a negative impact on how the company viewed open game products.

There were people in the industry other than Tracy who had a reaction to it. And many of those reactions were negative.

 

[Orcus]

So what was your point again Clark? You do think WOTC would be willing to license it out to a few of the bigger companies (like Necro), or you don't?

My point is the same as it was: As of right now, they have not approached me with a license. BUT I believe that if they decide not to publically license 4E that I could probably get permission to do some things.

I think that is because they are deciding what they are going to do. There is no need to license out 4E on a publisher-by-publisher basis if they are going to publically license it.

If you are confused by my posts, I am sorry if I didnt explain it better. If you are trying to find a contradiction in my posts, there isnt one and again I should have explained myself better.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

It is a bit ironic that the "why you should care" thread has not been moved back into the main forum.

I mean, here we are -- at ENWorld. If ever there is a place that is all about open gaming it is here. Heck, this site does the ENNies for goodness sake!

This site would hardly continue to exist if not for open gaming. It started as a 3E scoop site and quickly became the home of the open gaming movement and all the publishers.

Yes, somehow, why we should care about no open gaming for 4E isnt a main page thread. I still dont get that.

And for the many posters, here on this site, who say "I dont care about open gaming, what has it done for me." Well, one answer is -- this community. This community exists in large part because of open gaming.

Sort of funny how time changes all things and we lose our point of view.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

I was worried friday. I have calmed down a bit. It isnt like me to get all freaky. But I do feel so very strongly that it is a huge mistake to not allow third party publishers to support 4E.

So I appologize for my public statements of concern. I dont retract them. I still have them.

But as I have said on my own boards, I shouldnt panic. (and to the extent I am causing that, I am sorry and should be more well behaved). In the end, I know there are good people who are trying to get this done. Scott. Linae. Et al.

And, in the end, this is the company that saved D&D, opened up open gaming and continued to support it. They certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, despite my concerns.

I still believe the openness of 4E will be supported, whether by GSL or not and whether as open as I want it to be or not. Perhaps more restrictive than the OGL, perhaps not.

My faith remains! Go Scott, Go Linae! Go Wizards!

Clark

 

[Seanchai]

Everyone expects the GSL is going to be more restrictive. The d20 license prevents the Book of Erotic Fantasy, for example.

Sure, but it doesn't prevent products that are undesireable in other ways, such as being bad in general.

What's your basis for saying this?

Er, the customer base not being any bigger than when the OGL was released. The industry's not growing.

First, that it's zero-sum. It's not. Owing the Book of Iron Might does not significantly diminish the value of owning the Complete Warrior. If anything, it enhances it--if I'm trying to build a warrior, having twice as many options is worth more than double the cost.

How does owning Mongoose's Lone Wolf help me build a better fighter in my Midnight game?

It can be that one product will enchance another, but, then again, maybe they're useless and stuck somewhere on the shelf. They might be useless because the systems aren't that compatible, because they rely on subsystems that haven't crossed the gap, because they're redundant, because they're too powerful, because they're not powerful enough, because of tonal imcompatibilities, because the DM won't allow it, etc.

And the number of people who only have $30 to spend and have to choose between the two is not really that great.

If that were the case, I think the RPG industry would be in better shape than it is...Everything I've heard suggests that it's not doing too well, which means people are picking and choosing what to buy. I believe you put it this way: "They're choosing between RPG X, and MMO Y, and movie Z, and cosplay, and board games, and just getting drunk in a bar."

You can't get an effective monopoly in the RPG market.

No, but they can do it with the D&D market...

Even if the OGL costs WotC money--and I'm certain it does not--it's a sound investment in the future of the industry.

You're certain it doesn't? Do you believe all the folks who type up the SRD entries, the lawyers they consult, the people who deal license violations, et al., are volunteers? Take the process surrounding the GSL, for example - all that communication, writing of the contracts, lawyering, vetting, releasing, and so on costs time, resources that could be used elsewhere, and man hours.

If WotC thinks the best way of dealing with the problem is to pretend it doesn't exist, then their PR is worse than I thought.

Well, so far, they've only "pretended it doesn't exist," for two days on the weekend.

Seanchai

 

[Seanchai]

I'm sure that deeply, deeply concerns him.

You can be snotty, but it concerned him enough to comment on it.

Seanchai

 

[Seanchai]

Honestly, I wish people would stop pointing to the BoEF as a book that somehow tarnished D&D's image.

I think the past tense is the problem here. I don't think it tarnished D&D's image, but I do think it's a good example of a product that has the potential to do so. As I understand it, it was sold in major chains such as Barnes & Noble and Borders. I know it can be found on Amazon.com. It's there for concerned parents to run across.

But, really, in the context of this thread, I don't think of it as an example of something that tarnished D&D's image so much as an example of a OGL product that has the potential to turn folks away from D&D.

Seanchai