WOTC undecided over OGL/GSL. Why you should care

[Orcus]

And, if the moon is made out of cheese, why shouldn't we eat it?

The thing is, it does benefit their business. The scary thing is that Hasbro suits might not see that.

Yep. You hit it on the head.

 

[Umbran]

Actually that is NOT what it says.

Having worked for some time in marketing in a big corporation this would be my interpretation of the "spin".

"Higher-ups in the company are having second thoughts about whether we want to support Open-Gaming".

Let us be 100% clear: That is your interpretation.

Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate. People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others. Golden Rule, dude.

 

[Orcus]

I'm not disputing that. I only believe they will simply do what is best for their business. It's a business issue, not a philosophical one. There is no reason to boycott a company that made a decision for its best interests, right?

Anyway, I don't know how M&M or Spycraft benefits WOTC business, but oh well...

You are presuming that there is this all-prescient decision maker who truly knows the best interestes of the business. That just isnt the case in any business. If that was the case, all those decisions made by T$R back in the day wouldnt have led them to ruin. You cant just trust managers to know the right thing to do--and I say that having been a manager. The problem is, current managers simply dont have the history of experience with open gaming. It is up to the good folks who do, such as Scott and Linae, to make sure they understand.

I agree that there are some things about open gaming that dont help Wizards, and I have said as much. They dont get any benefit from bulk reprinting of their rules. They dont get any benefit from products that dont help sell D^D proiducts. They dont get any benefit from the creation of competing stand alone games like Mutants and Masterminds. I wouldnt be surprised to see any new license change all that. I would support such a license.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Let us be 100% clear: That is your interpretation.

Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate. People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others. Golden Rule, dude.

Nope, its my interpretation, too. And I believe it is the 100% truth. This is not conjecture. Dont dismiss it as conjecture.

But it isnt the truth for all of Wizards. I know there are many there who are fighting for open gaming. Scott, Linae, etc.

 

[Ydars]

Orcus; welcome to this debacle! I wish I could say I have achieved something, but I fear I haven't. Perhaps more people now know about this issue than having it hidden away on the OGL forums that most people don't read.

I am particularly sorry for 3PPs like yourself because you were clearlyas excited as I was about 4E and actually came out and openly supported 4E (unlike most others).

Reaper Steve; you need to do some more reading before making statements like this. Look at the front page of the 4E guide on EN world complied by Morrus. There you will find a very detailed press statement laying out WoTCs vision of the GSL.

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

A company that stays silent in the face of gamers and completely fails to engage with its market audience and that disregards their wishes. Where I have I heard that before? Wait, wasn't a company called TSR?

 

[Delta]

Maybe I'm wrong. Can someone explain the laws of this to me?

This is one of the most argued points in the modern gaming industry. Read this page from the US Copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

But, in the history of RPGs no one has had the money to fight a court battle with TSR/WOTC when and if they send a cease & desist letter over something they don't like. So in theory it's allowed, in practice no one's been able to do it to date.

 

[Jack99]

It may be an assumption, but I also believe it is true. I think there is a chance that there is no open gaming for 4E. And that really has me concerned.

I am one of Wizards' biggest supporters on these boards. I always have been. I've worked with them in the past. I've gotten special permission and license deals for things like Tome of Horrors. If there is a dedicated and trusted third party publisher from Wizards' standpoint, it really has to be me.

I am not calling for a boycott. But get one thing straight--the OP is not wrong in his belief. Not at all. This is a very real concern. I am reconsidering my whole strategy because of teh very same concerns. That is how real it is.

And thrid parties are relevant to gaming. We help transfer customers from one edition to the other. We provide alternate visions of game play. Gamers are fickle. They like things their way. Not everyone wants the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. We provide alternatives. So what does that do? It keeps people playing D&D as opposed to peeling off to other games. Some of that happens anyway, but the third parties have really kept people playing D&D. That is a HUGE benefit for Wizards.

I would be really sad if you were right, Clark, as I am very much looking forward buying your products for my 4e game. I am also sad that you seem to have lost your faith, since you, as you stated in the GSL. thread, have by far been the most vocal supporter (amongst the 3rd party publishers) of 4e and Wizards.

3rd party products never made me buy less WOTC stuff, it just made me spend more money, so from personal experience, I definitely think that an OGL (or an GSL for that matter) is a good thing for WoTC. On the other hand, I do also think that an OGL is too much, due to the fragmentation of the market.

I remain optimistic.

Cheers

 

[SSquirrel]

Are you calling me a Pathfinder fan? I fought duels over less, sir.

And the point isn't about whether or not Pathfinder is out yet. The point was that if there's thousands of people cancelling right now it's unlikely that "the suits at Habsro" immediately make the connection to the OGL minutiae. It's more likely they blame this new competitor, the state of the economy, or even the lunar phases for all I care.

Sorry if I offended Being a Pathfinder fan was the only assumption I could make for why WotC would automatically assume a bunch of 4E pre-order cancellations were due to the PFRPG announcement.

Having the OGL definitely gives D&D a broader reach of development possibilities and I will be sad to see it go after all the good it did w/3E, but I won't boycott the game if it isn't open. It wasn't open for nearly 30 years after all and that didn't stop any of us from playing back then. Of course, Malhavoc was one of my favorite 3E era publishers and Monte has removed himself to work on other things. I do look forward to good 4E Necromancer products tho Clark!

 

[Oldtimer]

Let us be 100% clear: That is your interpretation.

Not only his...

 

[Roland55]

Let us be 100% clear: That is your interpretation.

Mistaking your own interpretation for what it does or does not say is a wonderful way to misunderstand, and miscommunicate. People around here hate it when others read too far into what they say, so we should the courtesy of not doing so to others. Golden Rule, dude.

Very, very true. Thank you for pointing this out.

I believe Hasbro appointed a new WOTC director recently. It would be entirely rational for a new director to revisit many prior decisions ... it isn't necessarily anything to feel 'doom and gloom' about. A new director cannot retain power without immediately seizing the reins and getting 'into' the new business (well, often 'new' to the 'new director'). A little soul searching does not always lead to change.

Or it may. Time will tell. I've seen it go both ways -- and I've worked at various levels in major corporations and enormous organizations for over 40 years. So, stay tuned.