D&D 4E Would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies?

[Hussar]

Just a thought about Dragon/Dungeon. Whether or not it was 3rd party doesn't really matter as far as this poll goes. It was 100% closed content. The existence of the OGL made zero difference to the magazines.

 

[SSquirrel]

I seem to recall the occasional OGC article but, by and large Dragon wasn't OGL. Even if Paizo was controlling the magazines, they were the official magazines of D&D and thus basically first party. I had never met anyone (Dice4Hire) who considered Dragon and Dungeon to be 3rd party.

 

[Roman]

I seem to recall the occasional OGC article but, by and large Dragon wasn't OGL. Even if Paizo was controlling the magazines, they were the official magazines of D&D and thus basically first party. I had never met anyone (Dice4Hire) who considered Dragon and Dungeon to be 3rd party.

Yes, I don't think Dungeon and Dragon were OGL.

 

[Hussar]

AFAIK, the only OGC Dragon produced was a single special issue. Was Polyhedron OGC? I'm not sure. Before I started subscribing. Dungeon never had any OGC.

I find a bit of irony that people would hold up Dungeon/Dragon as examples of how the OGL is a good thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I preordered my 3 Core books because I could (and other RPGs as well), so I'm clearly not requiring my RPGs to be under some kind of OGL.

Whether I continue to purchase 4Ed books or not, though, is an entirely different matter, based on factors that include the existence of something like an OGL.

...Because I'm less enthusiastic about this transition than about any previous edition update of any other RPG I own (EVER), and I'm hoping the 3rd party publishers do a better job with the 4Ed paradigm than how I perceive WotC to be doing.

I had never met anyone (Dice4Hire) who considered Dragon and Dungeon to be 3rd party.

I have...or at least, I've gamed with people who act as if it is by disallowing it 100%.

 

[Orcus]

I see it and interpret it differently. (The numbers have changed since you posted but I think the % is still basically the same)

Only those who voted for the first option really care about open gaming.

The people in the second option just want 3rd party products, they don't care if 3pps have a special license or if they made the products based on a OGL. Openness is not important for them.

Those who voted for the third option are ok with only WOTC products.

So, "openness" itself only matters for 7-8% of the voters from this poll. The others 76% will naturally purchase 4E the way things are going, with WOTC's plans of a more restricted GSL.

I just dont see how you can say that.

Here are the first two positions:

I would only purchase 4E if it were fully open (for example, like the 3.5E OGL)
I would only purchase 4E if it were at least partially open (say, like the d20 license)

That means you combine those two groups. Because if 4E isnt open AT ALL then by those definitions, neither of those two groups buy 4E.

So I would say openness matters alot to those first two groups.

Clark

*Yes, the numbers have changed since I posted.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I seem to recall the occasional OGC article but, by and large Dragon wasn't OGL. Even if Paizo was controlling the magazines, they were the official magazines of D&D and thus basically first party. I had never met anyone (Dice4Hire) who considered Dragon and Dungeon to be 3rd party.

Whether anyone agrees with me about Dungeon and Dragon being 3rd party is a bit off the topic. I held them up as examples of something that was possible with having 3.x open. If there had been no SRd, I suppose the magazines could have been published anyway, under a more restrictive contract with WOTC, but it is doubtful that that wold have happened, as there would be no Paizo, or many other gamin companies out there.

Whether anyone likes the two magazines or not, (I did not like Dragon), I think they can be accepted as an example of how other companies were able to add to 3.x due to the open content.

But with my vote, I said I do not really care if it is open or not. I will buy 4E and probably play it extensively, side by side with 3.5. I will be happy with 4E and the products WOTC puts out, but I know a lot of people would prefer to see a broader supply of products.

 

[Green Knight]

I'll buy D&D no matter what. I didn't need an OGL to play AD&D, and I certainly don't need one to play D&D 4E. It's a nice extra, but that's all it is. An extra, not a necessity. That being said, I'm looking forward to seeing what products get put out under the GSL. And from what I've read of it, I'd prefer it if the GSL were less restrictive.

 

[mxyzplk]

Whether anyone likes the two magazines or not, (I did not like Dragon), I think they can be accepted as an example of how other companies were able to add to 3.x due to the open content.

I agree - OGL or not, they were outsourced. The "brave new world" of WotC's open gaming initiative covered lots of different things.

- #1 - Third parties publishing under the OGL - Mutants & Masterminds, etc.
- #2 - Third parties publishing under the d20STL - most adventures
- #3 - Third parties publishing under specific license - Dragonlance, Ravenloft, etc.

They did away with #3 already - pulled all their licenses from everyone. Dragon, Dungeon, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, computer things like the PCGen addon packs, everything. Maybe they'll re-license - but why pull them in the first place then? To totally minimize their revenue stream (and that of gaming stores) between the 4e announcement and launch? I'm willing to believe some amount of retardation on the part of their business decisions there but that's a bit much.

#1 is clearly dead.

#2 is the only thing still under any sort of consideration (as the revamped GSL) and, as the delays mount, it's not looking good for that either.

 

[Orcus]

#1 is clearly dead.

Call me foolish, but I still hold out hope for Wizards just using the OGL. I know, I have said I think it is more likely that they use a GSL or STL-style license with restrictions. But I dont want to say the OGL approach for 4E is dead. I'm still holding out hope.

So I guess I would change your comment to "#1 is likely not going to happen." I wouldnt say "clearly dead."

But maybe I am just a silly optimist. I did take it as a prestige class, after all... Demon Lord 10 / Evil Wizard 10 / Paladin (fallen?) 10 / Silly Optimist 4

Clark