# Hypothetical question for 3pp: 5e goes OGL what would you publish?



## Gundark

First off would you publish for it?

You have the Amethyst setting for dndnext being kickstarted now. Bold move.

Second, What products would you make?


----------



## delericho

Hypothetically, if I were a 3pp publisher...

I'd start with adventures, with a view to getting something out as close to release day as possible. In fact, I'd probably be writing it now, using the playtest rules.

Once the game is out, I'd take a close look at the provided rules modules, and come up with a list of areas that aren't yet covered. I'd probably cross the biggest few off my list (since WotC would probably be working on them already), and of course anything WotC have already announced. And then I'd look at the possibilities of supporting the others - especially any that are more old-school in nature.

I'd think very carefully about doing a setting, although I might drop some hints of one into my adventures, for later use (or not).

Incidentally... whether it's officially open or not, I'd actually be very surprised if it wasn't possible to support 5e using the OGL. After all, it was possible to do so with 4e, and everything we've seen so far seems to indicate that 5e is closer to 3e and/or the retroclones (which are OGL). And, where there _are_ new mechanics, they seem to have deliberately favoured terms from 'natural' language, such as "advantage" and "challenge", which they can't really control. Though, of course, it would be nice if someone at WotC recognised this likelihood, and officially opened the game - much easier, and less risky, that way.

(And, since it really does need to be said: I am not a lawyer.)


----------



## Mercurius

If I was a 3PP I'd create a combination of adventures and a setting in which they take place (as default) to flesh them out. The adventures would include two types: One-offs ala Dungeon Crawl Classics, and adventure paths ala Pathfinder. 

The setting would start out with little detail - perhaps a 64-page gazetteer to get things started, with maybe a 4-page primer in each adventure as an insert; 2 pages of general overview, 2 pages specific to the region the adventure is set in. Then I'd publish expansion regions - either 32 or 64 pages, and then adventures for each. Eventually, if it was successful, I'd create a hardcover or boxset campaign world product.

I'd also publish a few books of short adventures and pre-made encounters - stuff that DMs could throw in when they need to spice up a session. And maybe one or two boxset mega-adventures/mini-campaigns.

So again, I'd combine qualities of both Dungeon Crawl Classics and Pathfinder. I'd probably stay away from splat books, although mainly because they don't interest me as much as setting and adventures. 3PPs should stick to what they love, which increases the chances of a quality product.


----------



## Morrus

Gundark said:


> You have the Amethyst setting for dndnext being kickstarted now. Bold move.




How does that work?  No final rules, no license. I'm curious.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> How does that work?  No final rules, no license. I'm curious.




There have been entire settings published that are rules-agnostic, have there not?  So, you start with all the materials you can write without rules.  You sketch out some things based on what is seen in the packets (like, "King Haggard is a high-level fighter type"), and leave details for last...


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> There have been entire settings published that are rules-agnostic, have there not?  So, you start with all the materials you can write without rules.  You sketch out some things based on what is seen in the packets (like, "King Haggard is a high-level fighter type"), and leave details for last...




I suppose.  It's not really for D&D Next then, in that case.  But yeah, I suppose you could skate round the edges and hope for a license and hold off publishing till you have it and a final ruleset.


----------



## RangerWickett

I'd publish a series of fantasy time travel adventures that use books to hop between eras the way Myst used them to hop between worlds.

And I'd write a flexible magic system (something I never got around to doing for 4e).

And I'd probably end up doing a conversion of ZEITGEIST and War of the Burning Sky.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> I suppose.  It's not really for D&D Next then, in that case.




Well, not yet, anyway.  This is how you get a kickstarter and start work before you have the license.  If they never give a license, obviously you cannot put "for 5e" on the cover.  But, since it is kickstarter, all the folks have already ordered it, so you aren't so worried about that marketing aspect any more.


----------



## Gundark

Morrus said:


> How does that work?  No final rules, no license. I'm curious.




I've spoke to Chris in the past and he seems pretty optimistic about 5e having some kind of 3PP licence that he feels he can work with. In fairness he's now included 13th Age and Savage Worlds as part of the kickstarter.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> Well, not yet, anyway.  This is how you get a kickstarter and start work before you have the license.  If they never give a license, obviously you cannot put "for 5e" on the cover.  But, since it is kickstarter, all the folks have already ordered it, so you aren't so worried about that marketing aspect any more.




My worry is that no such license appears; in which case you've Kickstarted and taken money for something you can't legally provide.  It seems like it could risk upsetting people.  There's delivery dates of Feb 2014 on that Kickstarter.  ((Then again, I'm sure folks would be understanding and wait longer for the DDN stuff - most Kickstarters, including my own, don't meet the schedules).


----------



## Mistwell

You can use the OGL to replicate as much of 5e as possible I suppose.


----------



## Morrus

That said - hypothetically - there would be Kickstarter from me for DDN versions of our three adventure paths, and possibly a new one.


----------



## Gundark

Morrus said:


> My worry is that no such license appears; in which case you've Kickstarted and taken money for something you can't legally provide.  It seems like it could risk upsetting people.  There's delivery dates of Feb 2014 on that Kickstarter.  ((Then again, I'm sure folks would be understanding and wait longer for the DDN stuff - most Kickstarters, including my own, don't meet the schedules).




you do run the risk, that's for sure. Most of the rules he is advertising he can in theory deliver on, only 5e is up in the air.


----------



## DiasExMachina

I've mentioned it on the Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1894400580/amethyst-fantasy-and-technology-collide) that we have it on authority that there will be at least an SRD and probably an OGL for D&D Next (5E).  You would have to have a major regime change at WOTC to cast doubt on that.  WOTC is committed in rebuilding their 3PP base after 4E.  DEM was the first to sign (so goes the rumor) to the GSL, and we’re even more confident now.  That was point one.  

Point two is that we stated that when D&D Next is released, we'll then release the version of Amethyst for it.  So obviously, we'll be waiting for the final rules before releasing that edition.  It won't be a rules-free version--it will be a fully adapted setting using D&D Next.  Our release date indicated refers the due date for the majority of the content (4E, Fate Core, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds).  I added in an update that both 5E and 13th Age will take a bit longer.  If the KS succeeds, content will start being released as early as Christmas and will continue steadily the weeks and months to follow.

Our third point is that if by some weird voodoo circumstance a SRD is NOT released, there are still ways to create a compatible supplement for 5E.  I learned that from Joseph Goodman.  

I hope that clears up any doubt.  I remember fielding similar concerns when DEM started mucking around in the 4E sandbox.  WOTC never tried to take our IP away.  They never flexed copyright or frowned on us breaking philosophy.  Of course, they could have done better in their relationship with 3PP, and they know that...

  "We aim to create a more cohesive tie between WotC and third parties"

So yes, there will be a fully realized version of Amethyst for 5th Edition.  It will happen.


----------



## DaveMage

Interesting.


----------



## darjr

DiasExMachina said:


> I've mentioned it on the Kickstarter (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1894400580/amethyst-fantasy-and-technology-collide) that we have it on authority that there will be at least an SRD and probably an OGL for D&D Next (5E).  You would have to have a major regime change at WOTC to cast doubt on that.  WOTC is committed in rebuilding their 3PP base after 4E.  DEM was the first to sign (so goes the rumor) to the GSL, and we’re even more confident now.  That was point one.





That's a huge scoop. And really good news. I just wish they'd yell it from the mountain tops. I think it would only be good for them.

edit: [MENTION=58907]DiasExMachina[/MENTION];

I'm not doubting you. I'm just floored. And very curious.


----------



## DiasExMachina

darjr said:


> That's a huge scoop. And really good news. I just wish they'd yell it from the mountain tops. I think it would only be good for them.




...probably because they haven't finalized the rules.  I am sure there will at least be an SRD.  Even though I was told there would be an OGL, that I am less certain about...but that doesn't concern me to be honest, since I plan on sticking close to WOTC in regards to 5E.


----------



## dd.stevenson

darjr said:


> I just wish they'd yell it from the mountain tops. I think it would only be good for them.



Not if it raises expectations beyond what they're willing/able to fulfill.


----------



## Morrus

DiasExMachina said:


> ...probably because they haven't finalized the rules.  I am sure there will at least be an SRD.  Even though I was told there would be an OGL, that I am less certain about...but that doesn't concern me to be honest, since I plan on sticking close to WOTC in regards to 5E.




Yeah, like @_*darjr*_ says, if you have that information somehow, you have the hugest scoop in RPGs right now. That's information nobody else has, except you. 

Could you cite your source on this? I mean, I consider myself fairly well informed (not like I used to be, but even so) and have not heard a whiff of this.


----------



## DiasExMachina

Morrus, I'll respond to your privately since answering here may cause issues with the NDA restrictions.  I know I probably crossed that line already.


----------



## Morrus

DiasExMachina said:


> Morrus, I'll respond to your privately since answering here may cause issues with the NDA restrictions.  I know I probably crossed that line already.




Thanks. I got it. That's - I hesitate to use the word, but - astonishing. I'll respect your request and not share it. I'm curious why WotC is sharing info like that with you specifically, though? (I don't doubt it it all; just wondering if you have some particular connection with Mearls that the rest of us don't?)


----------



## DiasExMachina

Full disclosure.  This conversation was old, before any playtesting material had been released.  After, I found myself on the friends & family playtest, allowing me to see a version of the rules months before the open playtest started.  Those were...umm...not good.  They needed help, and shortly after was when Monte Cook departed.  Could WOTC reverse their opinion and strip out the OGL?  Perhaps.  But economically, it would be suicide for WOTC to do so.  They lost considerable market share to Pathfinder because of 3PP abandonment, and with the industry fragmented again with OGLs for 13th Age, Savage Worlds, and Fate Core, this is a perfect opportunity for WOTC to retake the stage with "the new standard."

Even if I hadn't received any information from WOTC regarding the future of 3PP support, DEM would still promise Amethyst for 5E.  I am not a gambling man by any means.  This is a safe bet.


----------



## DiasExMachina

Morrus said:


> Thanks. I got it. That's - I hesitate to use the word, but - astonishing. I'll respect your request and not share it. I'm curious why WotC is sharing info like that with you specifically, though?




Well, I did write this:  http://www.livingdice.com/5870/an-open-letter-to-save-3rd-party-dungeons-and-dragons-companies/

Maybe it DID have an impact after all.


----------



## darjr

Well, OGL Next would be very cool. And if you helped make that happen, thank you. I'm not a 3pp, nor a pp of any kind but I do have a strong desire to see 5e go OGL as a consumer. And this thread rocks on toast. I love hearing about what folks might do with 5e.


----------



## DiasExMachina

darjr said:


> Well, OGL Next would be very cool. And if you helped make that happen, thank you. I'm not a 3pp, nor a pp of any kind but I do have a strong desire to see 5e go OGL as a consumer. And this thread rocks on toast. I love hearing about what folks might do with 5e.




Enough to contribute to my kickstarter?   

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1894400580/amethyst-fantasy-and-technology-collide

OH COME ON; I have to try!


----------



## darjr

Sounds like you said 'Checkmate'. check. mate.


----------



## Mark CMG

Gundark said:


> Hypothetical question for 3pp: 5e goes OGL what would you publish?





Yup.  But it would have to be a clean OGL and not some GSL crap.  An OGL'd game begins from the understanding that partners on all sides are working toward a common goal, a systemic movement, despite some partners being major and others minor, and some experiementing with some very tangential offshoots.  The GSL smacks of thinking they're doing someone a favor.  I have no interest in the latter.  They're either in or they're out.




Gundark said:


> Second, What products would you make?





Don't know.  Probably some adventures and off-beat sourcebooks.


----------



## Mark CMG

DiasExMachina said:


> an OGL





There is no "an" OGL.  When you used that in the previous post I figured it was just quick post with no specific intent behind the "an."  Now that you've used it twice, I understand the semantic intent.  They either use "the" OGL or they don't.  See, the problem is, you seem fine with "the" GSL (and that's all well and good for you and some few others) which they peddled as "an" OGL when they trotted it out way back when.  As long as folks who seem to be in-the-know are using semantic sleight of hand like "an" OGL, then I'm fairly confident we won't be seeing WotC using THE OGL for 5E.


----------



## Wicht

Mark CMG said:


> There is no "an" OGL.  When you used that in the previous post I figured it was just quick post with no specific intent behind the "an."  Now that you've used it twice, I understand the semantic intent.  They either use "the" OGL or they don't.  See, the problem is, you seem fine with "the" GSL (and that's all well and good for you and some few others) which they peddled as "an" OGL when they trotted it out way back when.  As long as folks who seem to be in-the-know are using semantic sleight of hand like "an" OGL, then I'm fairly confident we won't be seeing WotC using THE OGL for 5E.




Thats a concern I would have (and thought something similar). Though technically, they could do an updated OGL and it would be "an" OGL, but unless it is even more lenient than the first, there is no point in releasing or utilizing such a thing. 

Here's hoping its just out and out, "the" OGL.


----------



## Mark CMG

Wicht said:


> Thats a concern I would have (and thought something similar). Though technically, they could do an updated OGL and it would be "an" OGL, but unless it is even more lenient than the first, there is no point in releasing or utilizing such a thing.
> 
> Here's hoping its just out and out, "the" OGL.





I see what you're saying, and I hope you are right, but they seemed to be careful last time to avoid saying "a version of the OGL" which would imply just updating the number.  Heck, they have lots of experience with forcefeeding us the word "iteration" which could also be used if they plan to go with THE OGL but simply wanted to adjust the number.  For those reasons, I'm not closing the door on the possibility that they might use the OGL but I am less confident based on past semantic tricks and the use of the "an" above by someone who seems to have actually discussed things behind closed doors.


----------



## Wicht

Mark CMG said:


> I see what you're saying, and I hope you are right,...




Well, don't misconstrue my mood to be one of confidence.   

I remember the GSL fiasco myself. But I will follow what they do with keen interest.


----------



## Jester David

The OGL/GSL question is a big one.
The absence of a flexible 3PP certainly hurt 4e. Because people couldn't provide alternate rules it was much harder to produce alternate content, content WotC wasn't creating themselves. 
But the restrictive GSL also came before Pathfinder took D&D's market share. The urge not to make the same mistake might be strong (even if the lessons that should be ones of creating a flexible game, listening to the audience, communication, and devaluing the core books).

I can still see the upper management changing their mind and deciding a new OGL is not worth the risk. 

*What Products*
I imagine any 3PP with a world would do a campaign conversion with races and class options. 
Finding an unsupported niche (psionics, horror, evil campaigns) works for a lot of Paizo's 3PP. Similar lines would work with D&D Next. I can also imagine Asian mythology products being a good hook for 3PP. 
Given the initial push of 5e seems to be on retro play and winning back lost players, a good 3PP hack would be a variant focused on new school play, possibly with a 4e slant. A 4e Pathfinder as it were using 5e.


----------



## Morrus

If I were to guess (and this is a complete WAG) I'd imagine that we'd likely see something like the OGL, but with aspects of the d20 STL incorporated into it.  Instead of two licenses, there'd be one, and that would feature restrictions on creating new games with it (e.g. no XP tables or how to roll ability scores, like the d20 STL forbade - so you couldn't make a full_ Pathfinder_ with it, but you could make a thousand splatbooks or adventures which _required_ the core rulebooks).

That's my guess, anyway.


----------



## DiasExMachina

Morrus said:


> If I were to guess (and this is a complete WAG) I'd imagine that we'd likely see something like the OGL, but with aspects of the d20 STL incorporated into it.  Instead of two licenses, there'd be one, and that would feature restrictions on creating new games with it (e.g. no XP tables or how to roll ability scores, like the d20 STL forbade - so you couldn't make a full_ Pathfinder_ with it, but you could make a thousand splatbooks or adventures which _required_ the core rulebooks).
> 
> That's my guess, anyway.




And that would be fine by me as well.  The whole purpose around my response was that we are confident an/the OGL is coming. If my source was unsuccessful, and we only have a GSL, DEM will publish through that agreement considering we did so with 4th Edition without any restrictions of freedom or paranoia of intellectual property loss. The possibility that WOTC will not open 5E for 3PP support is so minute, I’d have better odds winning the 6/49 and then promptly getting struck by a chunk of Russian space debris.

And even considering that, we’ll still be able to publish for 5E. Goodman released 4E products before the GSL said he could. I’m only saying that baring a vicious shark attack, DEM will be able to deliver our promise mentioned in our Kickstarter to release Amethyst for DDN.


----------



## TrippyHippy

If D&D5e wants to succeed as a brand, in the light of it's competitors, then it needs to be Open. If they try to do it in splendid isolation, it will die a slow death from the offset.


----------



## frankthedm

Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm thinking if we see an OGL, it is because Mearls and crew are trying to get the gilded thread ready knit themselves a golden parachute for when Wotc lets them go.

5E does not need an OGL, it just needs to be *both* a good game and a familiar game to enough people. TSR got folks to buy their books over again with 1E, Basic, 2E and then again with the skills and powers set. They only died due to disastrous mismanagement. 3E got away with many changes because so many of them were intuitive and 3.5 refined many things but did not utterly invalidate 3.0 books. 4E birthed Pathfinder cause Wotc made 4E too different. Pathfinders ditched Wotc to stay with a _familiar_ game.


----------



## DiasExMachina

frankthedm said:


> 4E birthed Pathfinder cause Wotc made 4E too different. Pathfinders ditched Wotc to stay with a _familiar_ game.




Noooo, they ditched WOTC because WOTC failed to deliver the 4E rules to third party publishers in a timely fashion.  The GSL only sealed the deal. The seeds of Pathfinder had already been sowed before anyone had even seen the 4th Edition rules.


----------



## frankthedm

DiasExMachina said:


> Noooo, they ditched WOTC because WOTC failed to deliver the 4E rules to third party publishers in a timely fashion.  The GSL only sealed the deal. The seeds of Pathfinder had already been sowed before anyone had even seen the 4th Edition rules.



Meant Pathfinders as players of Pathfinder, not as a ref to Paizo Staff. Pathfinder's success came from its familiarity. Paizo probably had plans for their own d20 ruleset when Wotc told them _No More Print Dungeon & Dragon Magazine in X issues. You can announce this in N months_.



Morrus said:


> My worry is that no such license appears; in which case you've Kickstarted and taken money for something you can't legally provide.



Thank you  [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]. it is sounding like this is all a verbal agreement. Good news, but not secure enough for patronage, IMHO.



Mistwell said:


> You can use the OGL to replicate as much of 5e as possible I suppose.



I'm curious on how to do that before 5E is even out without going by the playtest docs which came with a NDA.







Morrus said:


> That said - hypothetically - there would be Kickstarter from me for DDN versions of our three adventure paths, and possibly a new one.



After the agreements are signed, should those be required?


----------



## Mistwell

frankthedm said:


> I'm curious on how to do that before 5E is even out without going by the playtest docs which came with a NDA.




I am suggesting you release almost-simultaneous with 5e, not before.


----------



## frankthedm

Mistwell said:


> I am suggesting you release almost-simultaneous with 5e, not before.



I'm curious on how one can get almost-simultaneous with the delays it takes to write, edit, playtest, final edit, get it printed and deliver to market.


----------



## Mistwell

frankthedm said:


> I'm curious on how one can get almost-simultaneous with the delays it takes to write, edit, playtest, final edit, get it printed and deliver to market.




I don't think WOTC will care if you used their playtest docs to start writing your product privately prior to release of 5e, provided you release it after 5e is released.  Once the information is no longer private, it's not confidential thereafter..


----------



## DiasExMachina

Having been on the playtest from the beginning, I won't even touch a DDN edition of Amethyst until we have the final rules in hand.  Until then, we still have adaptations of Savage Worlds, 13th Age, Fate Core, Pathfinder, and 4th Edition to complete.


----------



## dmccoy1693

So the cat is out of the bag huh? Yea, a couple of high level meetings I had at GenCon last year got me the same information several times from different people about 5e being OGL. I didn't believe how committed they were at first until I heard it a second time. The biggest thing I don't know about the moment is when the books will be released and when I can start publishing for it. But I can't wait for the day that it happens. The whole JBE crew is really excited about 5e. We're really looking forward to showing off what we have been working on for a while now.


----------



## delericho

If it is true, and 5e is open via the OGL, then that will be great. To be honest, I'll be astonished that they've managed to get that by Legal, but I guess miracles do happen.

However, I'll believe it when I see it, and not before. Because until we have the license/list of open materials in-hand, there's always a chance they might change their mind.


----------



## Dannager

That sounds like two sources to me. Certainly enough to report that WotC has conveyed to 3pps that 5e will definitely feature an OGL.


----------



## Wicht

Dannager said:


> That sounds like two sources to me. Certainly enough to report that WotC has conveyed to 3pps that 5e will *definitely *feature an OGL.




I trust Dale. I assume that Dias is likewise trustworthy.

However, I remember a man named Clark, whom I also trusted, who got rather burned declaring, based on sources he trusted in WotC, that 4e was _definitely _going to be OGL. I am far more optimistic about it then I was a couple of days ago, but I will believe it will definitely happen when it happens.


----------



## Wicht

As an aside, to answer the original question...

I am working on a Kaidan campaign guide.  If 5e is open, then I would be open to trying to come up with a 5e version of it. After that, some of it would depend on how enjoyable I actually find the system to be in regards to writing adventures. Even if 4e had been open, I didn't like the system's assumptions enough to try and learn it well enough to write adventures for it.


----------



## DiasExMachina

Wicht said:


> I trust Dale. I assume that Dias is likewise trustworthy.
> 
> However, I remember a man named Clark, whom I also trusted, who got rather burned declaring, based on sources he trusted in WotC, that 4e was _definitely _going to be 4e.




Well, 4e did be 4e.  It didn't become 5e 

I know what you're saying but DEM's reputation is only on the line if we don't deliver on our promise of a DDN Amethyst, which we will regardless of how the future of WOTC turns out.  It wasn't my intention to leak out this information when it did.  I honestly thought a lot of people, including Morrus, knew.  Thankfully, someone else has stepped forward which is a relief.


----------



## Halivar

DiasExMachina said:


> Well, 4e did be 4e.  It didn't become 5e



I'll go out on a limb here and assume he meant to say OGL.


----------



## DiasExMachina

Halivar said:


> I'll go out on a limb here and assume he meant to say OGL.




Yes, I know.  I was teasing.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Wicht said:


> I trust Dale. I assume that Dias is likewise trustworthy.
> 
> However, I remember a man named Clark, whom I also trusted, who got rather burned declaring, based on sources he trusted in WotC, that 4e was _definitely _going to be 4e. I am far more optimistic about it then I was a couple of days ago, but I will believe it will definitely happen when it happens.



 Truth be told, that is pretty much the biggest reason why I haven't made big announcements about what we are doing. Like the poster in Mulder's office, "I Want to Believe." But even if it is the exact same GSL out right now, we'll still sign on. We like 5e where 4e was not our game.


----------



## Wicht

Halivar said:


> I'll go out on a limb here and assume he meant to say OGL.




I need an editor for my online posting.


----------



## Jester David

dmccoy1693 said:


> So the cat is out of the bag huh? Yea, a couple of high level meetings I had at GenCon last year got me the same information several times from different people about 5e being OGL. I didn't believe how committed they were at first until I heard it a second time. The biggest thing I don't know about the moment is when the books will be released and when I can start publishing for it. But I can't wait for the day that it happens. The whole JBE crew is really excited about 5e. We're really looking forward to showing off what we have been working on for a while now.



Interesting. But I imagine that's what the D&D team is saying. The trick then is getting the actual license out of the hands of the legal team in time to get books ready for publication. 
Especially as there's a GenCon looming. We do not need a repeat of 4e where publishers found out two months before the Con that they couldn't sell books prior to October. 

Personally, I'd love for them to release an SRD after they finish the game and send the core books to the printers but before release, so we get a preview of the game a few months early. 
Especially as that would alow them to start releasing playtests of larger modules. So they can have larger accessories tested and ready to be published sooner rather than delay the whole process until books be in stores.


----------



## DaveMage

It certainly makes sense to be more inclusive than exclusive (since being exclusive didn't seem to work out for them).

Of course, a free OGL-like license was supposed to happen with 4E too, so we'll see if they actually release something acceptable to 3PPs or not.


----------



## DiasExMachina

I'll be running an AMA on Reddit today--Sunday--(related to the Kickstarter) around 4:00.  I'm sure I will be fielding (answering) questions concerning this topic.


----------



## DiasExMachina

DiasExMachina said:


> I'll be running an AMA on Reddit today--Sunday--(related to the Kickstarter) around 4:00.  I'm sure I will be fielding (answering) questions concerning this topic.




http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1pceft/iama_pen_paper_role_playing_game_designer_i_am/


----------



## darjr

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1pceft/iama_pen_paper_role_playing_game_designer_i_am/cd0z6wn


> Sorry for the delay. The situation involved an exchange of emails (like a murder of crows and a gaggle of geese) between myself and Mike Mearls. This was before the first round of playtesting, before even the Friends & Family phase which I somehow found myself a part of. It was during this exchange where Mearls' vision of an OGL future was shared with me. There was more mentioned which I won't go into but at the time, the current CEO of WOTC had signed off on the proposal.
> That all being said, I am still shocked so many people consider this news. It's like finding water on Mars--is it a realization or just a confirmation of something many people knew anyway?



You add here that you think it was said that the CEO of WotC signed off on it already.
 @_*DiasExMachina*_;
Congrats on the kickstarter!!!

I do worry that there is a disconnect from what I mean by OGL and what you might be meaning. I mean the OGL that Pathfinder, 3.0, 3.5, FATE, 13th Age and others are under. In my mind anything else doesn't really count.
 @_*dmccoy1693*_;

Can you clarify?


----------



## Mistwell

Dannager said:


> That sounds like two sources to me. Certainly enough to report that WotC has conveyed to 3pps that 5e will definitely feature an OGL.




I know of a third source saying the same thing as well, unrelated to these two, but I think it's wiser to not cite it right now.


----------



## DiasExMachina

darjr said:


> http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1pceft/iama_pen_paper_role_playing_game_designer_i_am/cd0z6wn
> 
> You add here that you think it was said that the CEO of WotC signed off on it already.
> @_*DiasExMachina*_;
> Congrats on the kickstarter!!!
> 
> I do worry that there is a disconnect from what I mean by OGL and what you might be meaning. I mean the OGL that Pathfinder, 3.0, 3.5, FATE, 13th Age and others are under. In my mind anything else doesn't really count.
> @_*dmccoy1693*_;
> 
> Can you clarify?




With the reminder that these emails are old and as many people have mentioned, things change.  I don't think they will, but others are less certain.


----------



## mxyzplk

frankthedm said:


> I'm curious on how one can get almost-simultaneous with the delays it takes to write, edit, playtest, final edit, get it printed and deliver to market.




A little history lesson.  When 3e launched at Gen Con 2000, Green Ronin launched Death in Freeport, an adventure, right along with it.  It helped catapult their company from a "who?" to a large well-respected publisher with multiple game lines. And that's without a year of open playtest to dial in on it.


----------



## dd.stevenson

DiasExMachina said:


> It wasn't my intention to leak out this information when it did.  I honestly thought a lot of people, including Morrus, knew.  Thankfully, someone else has stepped forward which is a relief.



But you were well motivated to do so, in order to clarify the nature of your 5E risks to kickstarter backers. That's something interesting that has come out of Kickstarter, IMO: to some degree insider business knowledge has become the public's business, insofar as the public has moved into the role of business investors.

(Just musing out loud, really.)

Also, congratulations on your Kickstarter!


----------



## DiasExMachina

dd.stevenson said:


> But you were well motivated to do so, in order to clarify the nature of your 5E risks to kickstarter backers. That's something interesting that has come out of Kickstarter, IMO: to some degree insider business knowledge has become the public's business, insofar as the public has moved into the role of business investors.
> 
> (Just musing out loud, really.)
> 
> Also, congratulations on your Kickstarter!




Except that even if we didn't know DDN was going OGL, we still would have offered it because of our confidence that it would.  It just helped that we knew better.  
And thanks, this thread generated considerable interest which helped...and then a sudden benefactor appeared and put us over the top.  Kinda going nuts on my end here.


----------



## dmccoy1693

darjr said:


> Can you clarify?



 Sure. At GenCon 2012, I had two different conversations. One with a Wizards person, one that wasn't a Wizards person but was in a position to know (I can't elaborate more than that, I was sworn not to say) that 5e was going to be OGL.


----------



## delericho

mxyzplk said:


> A little history lesson.  When 3e launched at Gen Con 2000, Green Ronin launched Death in Freeport, an adventure, right along with it.  It helped catapult their company from a "who?" to a large well-respected publisher with multiple game lines. And that's without a year of open playtest to dial in on it.




But it was _with_ a draft SRD that had been available for some time, and with Ryan Dancey at WotC, where he was gleefully leaking bits of the game all over the place - as I understand it, Eric Noah's site got most of their information from him - and it pretty much had the core of the game available months before release.


----------



## wedgeski

Well these are interesting revelations aren't they?

I still don't buy that 5E's only route to success is via an OGL-like mechanism. IMO that's still a fantasy cooked-up by the tiny percentage of consumers who actually care (i.e. us).

And if what happened with Pathfinder wasn't enough to seal the coffin-lid on a similar license for 5E, then WotC must *really* be in dire straits. Or maybe they just think the cat's already out of the bag.

But having said that, an open license will be an exciting development, especially with a mature crowd-funding landscape behind it.


----------



## mxyzplk

delericho said:


> But it was _with_ a draft SRD that had been available for some time, and with Ryan Dancey at WotC, where he was gleefully leaking bits of the game all over the place - as I understand it, Eric Noah's site got most of their information from him - and it pretty much had the core of the game available months before release.




We pretty much have the core of the game right now a year before release...


----------



## delericho

mxyzplk said:


> We pretty much have the core of the game right now a year before release...




Indeed. In theory, at least, it should be possible to do an almost-simultaneous release for 5e if one were so inclined.

Of course, there's a risk inherent in that: When 3e released, Sword & Sorcery (White Wolf) released a monster book on the same day - in fact, beating the 3e MM to market. However, that book was later shown to be full of mistakes, some of them quite serious. I guess that's the risk you take if you work from a draft/best guess, rather than waiting for the real thing.


----------



## Morrus

mxyzplk said:


> We pretty much have the core of the game right now a year before release...




A lot can change in a year, though.  It only takes one fundamental change to make your product pretty much incompatible - or, if not incompatible, at least buggy and erroneous as all heck.


----------



## mxyzplk

delericho said:


> Indeed. In theory, at least, it should be possible to do an almost-simultaneous release for 5e if one were so inclined.
> 
> Of course, there's a risk inherent in that: When 3e released, Sword & Sorcery (White Wolf) released a monster book on the same day - in fact, beating the 3e MM to market. However, that book was later shown to be full of mistakes, some of them quite serious. I guess that's the risk you take if you work from a draft/best guess, rather than waiting for the real thing.




Sure.  But releasing day 1 with some errors versus releasing months later without them - here's a little business sense quiz, which one is way, way, way better for sales?  (Especially when electronic products can be cleaned up easily and people are fairly tolerant of online errata even for print ones?)

People put out like 500 3pp monster books for 3e.  I own one - the Sword & Sorcery one. Because they were there first. Green Ronin went from basically nothing to a large thriving company on the back of its d20 adventures, starting with launch.  (Well, I think I do have Creatures of Freeport somewhere, that counts as a second monster book.)

As in other venues, fortune favors the bold. Anyone with a product in hand at Gen Con for launch will outsell all others that the hand-wringers provide "late but 100% rules correct" over the next year. That's just business in a new market, it shouldn't be news to anyone.


----------



## Morrus

mxyzplk said:


> Because they were there first. Green Ronin went from basically nothing to a large thriving company on the back of its d20 adventures, starting with launch.




I think you're undervaluing Green Ronin.  Green Ronin (and it's not a large company) is successful because they consistently work hard and produce good material; they'd be where they are now whether or not they'd released an OGL product at launch because they write good books.


----------



## mxyzplk

Come on guys, Business 101.  Sure, they write good books.  Guess what, a lot of publishers languishing out there in RPGNow land write good books.  They wrote good stuff off the bat and got the money and buzz so that they could write even better books, pay better writers, buy better art.  Do you think anyone without that would get the licenses they've got?  They don't give licenses for "writing good books" they give them for business sense. Do you think any brand new company with no sales yet could put out a product like M&M 3e? No, that takes already established pockets and resources.

Don't propagate the pernicious false promise that "if you just work reeeeeallly hard and put your heart into that 300 word manuscript you're writing, suddenly you'll have a successful game company." It's not true and all it gets you is depressed, disappointed creative types who don't realize why life "gave them a raw deal." If you are not smart about how you release, when you release, how you market and/or get free marketing, how you fund your products - you will not be successful.  Chalking up Green Ronin (or Paizo, or whoever's) success to nothing but "good books" and not the good business sense those companies' leaders have had reveals a dangerously naive lack of knowledge about publishing and business in general.


----------



## delericho

mxyzplk said:


> Sure.  But releasing day 1 with some errors versus releasing months later without them - here's a little business sense quiz, which one is way, way, way better for sales?




Initially, the former. However...



> People put out like 500 3pp monster books for 3e.  I own one - the Sword & Sorcery one. Because they were there first.




S&SS took a massive hit to their credibility once it became apparent just how badly wrong they had gone with their first offering. It had significant knock-on effects to their later sales. And now, they're nowhere.

Likewise, Fast Forward Entertainment generated some significant buzz with their first product, largely due to a lot of big-names being involved. Then they published, a lot of people bought their book... and then never bought anything again because that first book was _awful_.



> Green Ronin went from basically nothing to a large thriving company on the back of its d20 adventures, starting with launch.




Yes, launching on Day One was a _massive_ boost to them. But it would have been for naught without one other factor: "Death in Freeport" is a _really good product_.

Releasing on Day One will indeed give you a significant boost in sales, for that one product. It will also intensify any responses to that product, be they good or bad. If you produce a good product, it can set you up for years. Produce a bad product, though, and you might as well shut down right there, because you won't live it down.


----------



## darjr

I don't think the point is that they were successful because they were first. Just that because they were first they sold a TON of that product that was first and put their foot in the door with a lot of people. It was a gamble, sure, but for Green Ronin, in hindsight, it was a good bet, and a bad one for S&W. But I don't think there is any doubt that a TON of their product sold because of being available at release at Gen Con.

I don't want to encourage slap dash production just so publishers can have something at release, no no no, but good quality products by a great team can do wonders.


----------



## darjr

At first I think WotC called the license OGL when in fact it wasn't anything of the sort, or even finished.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...info-announced

They later changed the name to GSL and I think now the distinction is well known.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Oh, btw, when I was first told that Wizards was going OGL for 5e, I asked why. The answer I got can best be summarized as this.


----------



## DiasExMachina

It's simple economics.  WOTC knows they made a mistake with the initial GSL, proven later when they revised it.  They know they lost considerable market share to Pathfinder and are aware that Paizo's support of 3rd party products contributed to this (as well as their general public presence in general).  But in the intervening years, several other companies have allowed free licensing for their rules (13th Age, Fate Core, Savage Worlds, etc), which has fractured a community previous under the umbrella of Paizo, previously under the umbrella of WOTC.  If WOTC were to release 5E under OGL and offer licensing freedom similar to Pathfinder or the old 3rd Edition, it would suck all the 3rd Party Companies under the WOTC banner again.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Well, I don't know if the whole 3pp market will just wing back to them. I suspect it will be a long, slow momentium-requiring shift. It is not going to be an overnight swing, that is for sure. Reason is is that the big 5 back at the end of 3.5 (Necromancer, Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, and Green Ronin) have all moved on and now all have their own home systems (I'm counting Frog God Games as Necrmancer here). Smaller companies will take up the mantle and produce for 5e, and they will grow in size over time, but it will take time for 5e to be a juggernaut of influence and industry direction again. After all, Wizards didn't lose that distincction in a day (or a year).


----------



## Morrus

dmccoy1693 said:


> Well, I don't know if the whole 3pp market will just wing back to them. I suspect it will be a long, slow momentium-requiring shift. It is not going to be an overnight swing, that is for sure. Reason is is that the big 5 back at the end of 3.5 (Necromancer, Paizo, Goodman, Mongoose, and Green Ronin) have all moved on and now all have their own home systems (I'm counting Frog God Games as Necrmancer here). Smaller companies will take up the mantle and produce for 5e, and they will grow in size over time, but it will take time for 5e to be a juggernaut of influence and industry direction again. After all, Wizards didn't lose that distincction in a day (or a year).




I imagine that many will dabble with a trial product or two (assuming the license is friendly) and then either go ahead full steam or back away again.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Morrus said:


> I imagine that many will dabble with a trial product or two (assuming the license is friendly) and then either go ahead full steam or back away again.



Right, but we're not going to see monthly 128 page supplements, 64 page adventures, or giant monster books on day 1 from 3PP. It'll probably start off with 10-12 page PDFs for a while until the market has proven (or disproven) itself.


----------



## jmucchiello

If they make an OGL 2.0, I hope they *remove* the computing limitations. Won't happen because WotC doesn't control their computing rights. But still, I'd love to see the various chargen programs actually support the system without a nod and a wink.

That said, I could come out of retirement for a DDN that was actually OGL.


----------



## Alphastream

DiasExMachina said:


> It wasn't my intention to leak out this information when it did.  I honestly thought a lot of people, including Morrus, knew.  Thankfully, someone else has stepped forward which is a relief.




I'm going to make two posts that will likely be unpopular, but I feel they need to be said. First, when it comes to sharing confidential information, it is to the benefit of our industry that its members conduct themselves well. We don't want a dirty industry. we want a clean one. We don't want mistrust, we want trust.

I am really surprised that both Chris (quoted above) and Dale (elsewhere in the thread) seem to think it is okay to disclose and continue to discuss aspects of confidential discussions. If you were under an NDA, then you can't disclose something that isn't public. At all. Ever. You can't even confirm rumors. You can only state what is widely known by the public, because at that point you aren't disclosing anything. 

Even if you weren't under an NDA, you were presumably aware that you were part of confidential discussions. They confided in you, trusting that you would not spread that information. 

In both situations, you can't just send a private message to Morrus to see if you all know the same information. That isn't okay, because it is still disclosing. At each point where there is a question about whether information is public, the correct process is to go to Wizards and ask them. Morrus shouldn't be naming Mearls, and the thread should likely be deleted. 

If the information really is so old that it originated before the playtest was public, and perhaps two Gen Cons ago, then it seems very likely to not be reliable. Whether it is going to end up true or not, industry members should know the process - talk to Wizards and work with them to resolve any issue before spreading rumors.

Our hobby is a fragile one and could use better business practices so that we have more trust between companies, not less. Information leaks like this one give the larger companies (Wizards, Paizo, etc.) more reasons to mistrust small publishers. I hope that Chris Dias, Dale McCoy/Jon Brazer, and other publishers will be more careful with confidential information in the future.


----------



## Alphastream

DiasExMachina said:


> It's simple economics.  WOTC knows they made a mistake with the initial GSL, proven later when they revised it.  They know they lost considerable market share to Pathfinder and are aware that Paizo's support of 3rd party products contributed to this (as well as their general public presence in general).  But in the intervening years, several other companies have allowed free licensing for their rules (13th Age, Fate Core, Savage Worlds, etc), which has fractured a community previous under the umbrella of Paizo, previously under the umbrella of WOTC.  If WOTC were to release 5E under OGL and offer licensing freedom similar to Pathfinder or the old 3rd Edition, it would suck all the 3rd Party Companies under the WOTC banner again.




I've made this unpopular assertion in the past, but I really find the benefits of an OGL to be debatable for Wizards. 

For smaller publishers, I think the benefits are pretty clear. A smaller RPG company has many limits on their ability to grow their game, from a lack of marketing to the inability to fund a full product spread. An open gaming license means they lose some creative control, but the gains through having a greater presence should almost always outweigh any losses. When I see the 13th Age OGL, when I see Eclipse Phase hack packs and the company seeding their own torrents... those are great moves that seem to truly benefit those RPGs and their companies.

It isn't so clear for the very large companies. Wizards has a marketing department, even without dipping into the larger Hasbro marketing department. Wizards invests heavily in marketing and organized play programs. There aren't too many people in North America who don't know what Dungeons & Dragons is. Amongst gamers, how to find a game and where to find products are common pieces of knowledge. 

We can look at the 4E product line and see a very robust product. It really isn't lacking. It didn't need third party products to complete the offering. Just about anything that we might suggest adding to the 4E product line would be a product that is unlikely to see large market share. And yet, if a third party had been allowed to create from the beginning, it might have dipped into something Wizards wanted to do. We know 5E will at some point a book on undead. But if another company publishes it first, Wizards could lose sales when they publish their version. Wizards just doesn't need help with either marketing or product spread.

The biggest proponents of an OGL tend to be freelancers, and our industry is full of them. Sure, if you got started by writing for d20, it can be hard to argue against an OGL. And some have argued that an OGL is necessary to keep great talent. I don't agree. Wizards continues to have a great staff with great talent. They continue to have great relationships with freelancers, including freelancers that also work for Paizo, MCG, and other prominent RPGs. 

There is also the d20 glut and crash to consider. There was a lot of poor quality and it isn't clear that this was just an issue with companies learning the ropes. We can look at Kickstarter to see a lot of publishers and individuals making the same mistakes in judging their ability to deliver on quality. 

The biggest argument against the OGL is Paizo itself. The OGL prevented Wizards, for the first time, from just moving onto the next edition. Paizo could use the OGL to take away WotC's customer base, keeping them on an older edition - and without a single penny to WotC. The OGL has further enabled the OSR movement and various other competitive initiatives. 

It is interesting to see that Monte Cook didn't just replicate the OGL with Numenera, instead creating a separation by which a successful third party must negotiate terms. I would guess that MCG understands that they too have sufficient marketing and have plenty of ideas for products (witness The Strange Kickstarter). They want to engage people's creativity and create a community, but they don't want to see third parties usurp their product line or undermine their financial well-being. 

For all those reasons, I don't think Wizards will use the same OGL as before. I can see some reasons for an OGL, but they are very narrow:

First, Wizards could go back to the very original concept of the OGL, which was that Wizards would publish core books and let the rest of the industry publish everything else. I don't think that's the case, however. Wizards seems still to want to publish more than just core books (witness their return to publishing adventures, starting with the excellent _Murder in Baldur's Gate_).

Second, Wizards could decide to use a revenue sharing model, somewhat like the Apple store. I think that could have worked well with 4E. A way for anyone to publish their own adventure or supplement in an official store where it could be rated could be a way to allow everyone to benefit. Ratings could ensure quality and the store model could share revenue.

Thirdly, Wizards could be viewing this as the final edition of D&D or at least one to exist for a very long time. If that is the case, it could reverse some of what I wrote above. Because the normal product line approach won't be used (we aren't looking at just 4-5 years), it may make sense to allow more ways for third party publishers to use the material and to tap their creativity in keeping the rules and settings and adventures interesting. I really don't see why D&D Next would last longer than any other recent edition, but that may very well be the goal.

My personal hope is that the OGL resembles the MCG version, with perhaps more transparent revenue-sharing. I don't think a "just publish core books" model is really desired (the original concept) and the actual OGL sure seemed to hurt WotC. That seems to call for a new model where Wizards could ensure it benefits from third party efforts and still has come control to prevent enabling the growth of a major competitor.


----------



## darjr

jmucchiello said:


> If they make an OGL 2.0, I hope they *remove* the computing limitations. Won't happen because WotC doesn't control their computing rights. But still, I'd love to see the various chargen programs actually support the system without a nod and a wink.
> 
> That said, I could come out of retirement for a DDN that was actually OGL.



I think those computer rights were for games only and they have them back.


----------



## Morrus

There were limitations to stop folks competing with the (planned) DDI tools, too.


----------



## Balesir

Alphastream said:


> I've made this unpopular assertion in the past, but I really find the benefits of an OGL to be debatable for Wizards.



It's most certainly debatable, in the sense that it can be debated and the core reasons to feel it's "good" or "bad" are primarily philosophical, but I think it's the right thing for WotC to go with, and I'll try to explain why.



Alphastream said:


> The biggest argument against the OGL is Paizo itself. The OGL prevented Wizards, for the first time, from just moving onto the next edition. Paizo could use the OGL to take away WotC's customer base, keeping them on an older edition - and without a single penny to WotC. The OGL has further enabled the OSR movement and various other competitive initiatives.



This seems to me very much like the argument for tariff barriers and import/export controls, and for cartels and trusts and all the other anti-competitive artifacts that businesses and governments have cooked up over the years, and I think it's wrong for the same reason.

Sure, having a monopoly or cartel, or having import tariffs to "protect local industry" looks beneficial for the "insider" businesses at first blush. I'm sure it's many a CEO's wet dream to have a totally dominant market position. But it's bad for business - not just for the customer and the market (although it's more obviously bad for them, to be sure). It's bad for business because it teaches the "protected" businesses to be sloppy and lazy and abusive of their customers. It's bad because it causes "protected" businesses to rest on their laurels and fail to innovate to better serve their customers - and I actually think early TSR fell afoul of this precise issue.

Having standards and shared technologies makes for a better marketplace. If something works well, instead of ring-fencing it we should be taking it as a standard and innovating beyond it. The alternative is, as seen in some parts of the car industry, one manufacturer keeping the obvious best method to themselves while others create wierd "works just like" cludges to avoid litigation - and the customer gets to choose some good features and a few cludges in any configuration she chooses, but no "all round good car".

From an economic point of view, "trade" means doing what you do best and sharing the results; the freer trade is, the more this can happen and the better for *everybody* in the market. The only really cogent wrinkle found in this has been the need to make sure the originators of really good ideas get due reward - but that can and should happen through licensing, not exclusivity.

Given all this, I think the OGL was one of the best things to happen to gaming in general, but I also think it's thoroughly good for WotC. A truly strong company with a truly strong system will thrive on competition - including competition with its own previous products. The real error WotC made concerning the OGL, in my view, was not creating it - it was abandoning it (and, in the process, ceding control on the most popular of their own previous creations, 3E). 4E was, indeed, a sound system - it's my favourite form of D&D by far - but it had considerable opprobrium heaped on it _by customers_ for the licensing arrangements set for it and I think it suffered as a result in the marketplace.

If WotC had kept with OGL for 4E I think you might have seen two important things happen which may well have made their current position better:

1) 4E would not have suffered the attacks and deprecation that were aimed at WotC because of the abandonment of the OGL. That's not to say some would still not have liked the new departures - no edition will be universally beloved - but it would not have attracted the hate from jilted customers and 3pps who saw something they valued in WotC's _de-facto_ business offering being rescinded from them.

2) It would have been far more obvious that ceasing support for 3.5 was a bad move - that retaining some level of control over a competing product was the only sensible thing to do. Keeping the core books in print and offering PDFs of supplements - maybe with conversions for current adventures (although, er, hmmm...) - would have sufficed.

Holding a product range with two competing products, 4E and Pathfinder, is undoubtedly less than the management at WotC dreamed of when they formulated their strategy for 4E, but it's a lot more than they ended up with.


----------



## jmucchiello

The idea that OGL failed is somewhat silly. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. It created the largest network of RPG players, and those players all know how to play D&D3.x (and/or its variants). Most RPG players who know multiple systems, know some variant of D&D3.x. There are fewer multiple system players who know D&D2 or D&D4 (or GURPS or whatever else). The Network Effect was the plan and WotC abandoned that network with D&D4. They thought the brand was the network. They found out the game system was the network.

If DDN has OGL support, WotC could regain the top spot in the network. If not, they will still be competing with the network. Without OGL support, DDN attempts to reclaim that top spot based on brand alone. D&D4 failed to do that.

NOTE: I'm not talking about players considering D&D3.x their favorite. Being the top of the network makes you the system people all know and can communicate about other systems through. The idea about being at the top of the network is that if people can't agree on an outlier system to play, there's always the system everyone already knows.


----------



## darjr

That's a good point. Personally, there have been several times, when considering a change in genre, a D20 variant would come up as a top game to consider because the players knew it.


----------



## Alphastream

Balesir said:


> Sure, having a monopoly or cartel, or having import tariffs to "protect local industry" looks beneficial for the "insider" businesses at first blush. I'm sure it's many a CEO's wet dream to have a totally dominant market position. But it's bad for business - not just for the customer and the market (although it's more obviously bad for them, to be sure). It's bad for business because it teaches the "protected" businesses to be sloppy and lazy and abusive of their customers



D&D has never existed in a space where it lacked competition. We can read accounts going back to the very beginning and everyone has always been taking competition seriously. For example, the very first adventure was created by a third party, as was the first campaign setting. Those are good examples both of the benefits of competition and the existence of that competition. The competition was continual, from Wee Warriors (involving both competition and partnerships) to Numenera (involving former staff). 

This has never been a monopoly, though D&D has been dominant for the majority of its history. What is interesting about Paizo is that it is providing another D&D. As a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "I'm not sure it is good for the industry's top games to be D&D and D&D." Until very recently (thank you, Kickstarter), D&D and Pathfinder were so utterly dominant that all other systems were practically indie games. It wasn't good for the industry, because Paizo and WotC don't greatly benefit from cross-pollination. While they often intermix staff (a good example is Chris Sims, who worked at WotC, then at Paizo, then at WotC), the games are too similar and too rooted to truly inspire one another. 

It is really only the recent arrival of Kickstarter that has created a platform for other games to attract greater notice. Of perhaps equal importance has been D&D Next. By creating a long playtest period it has encouraged many groups to consider options and play other games in addition to just D&D. We see that effect even with Paizo supporters, and it's a very healthy thing. 

All of this is different from saying that an OGL is good because it challenges DnD. I really don't think it does. Wizards sees plenty of different freelancers, both new blood and old d20 contributors. It isn't missing out on seeing new ideas for D&D. Having an OGL wouldn't somehow change 'monopoly status', both because it isn't a monopoly and because if anything a dominant OGL would again hurt gaming by making DnD too big a thing compared to other games. As an example, consider when Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, Star Wars, and many other RPGs all went d20. While there were some good aspects to that, the majority of fans of those games will point to a non-d20 edition as their favorite. And every one of those games moved away from d20 to better represent their game. (Spycraft is doing so with its excellent upcoming third edition). 

You made a number of points about free trade and the like, but they all rest on the concept that an OGL creates competition and new ideas, which I dispute. Especially as compared to a landscape where there is a single D&D with different RPGs rather than A) everyone writing for d20 or B) D&D and Pathfinder dominating. My hope is that D&D can be a great flagship brand for the hobby while other very different compelling RPGs provide a strong competition and influence. Either not having an OGL or having a restrictive OGL would help create that competition.



Balesir said:


> If WotC had kept with OGL for 4E I think you might have seen two important things happen which may well have made their current position better:
> 1) 4E would not have suffered the attacks and deprecation that were aimed at WotC because of the abandonment of the OGL. That's not to say some would still not have liked the new departures - no edition will be universally beloved - but it would not have attracted the hate from jilted customers and 3pps who saw something they valued in WotC's _de-facto_ business offering being rescinded from them.
> 2) It would have been far more obvious that ceasing support for 3.5 was a bad move - that retaining some level of control over a competing product was the only sensible thing to do. Keeping the core books in print and offering PDFs of supplements - maybe with conversions for current adventures (although, er, hmmm...) - would have sufficed.



I don't buy this at all. 3.5 was dying a certain death when WotC started 4E. We were deep into "Complete Adventuring Companion" type of material. There was practically nothing left to sell, and fans had been clear that they didn't want another minor edition change (they hated the .5). Sales were dropping and there was nothing left to offer gamers. Even books like the Book of Nine Swords were doing poorly, from all accounts. Importantly, the d20 market did nothing to change this. Nothing at all. It was not vastly pumping up the sales of core books at that time to where WotC could sit back. It was not creating amazing innovation that reinvigorated the market. Not at all. Instead, the only thing that reinvigorated the market was Wizards leaving it. Only when fans were faced with having to play a very different edition were they able to be open to accepting a 3.75. And that was only possible due to the OGL.


----------



## Wicht

Alphastream said:


> I don't buy this at all. 3.5 was dying a certain death when WotC started 4E.




I don't quite buy that. I think there was some room to improve the edition, but Pathfinder's success surely shows third edition's death was far from a sure thing.


----------



## Morrus

Wicht said:


> I don't quite buy that. I think there was some room to improve the edition, but Pathfinder's success surely shows third edition's death was far from a sure thing.




Paizo got to start again with - effectively - 3.75; that's why. They weren't trying to continue selling sourcebooks for 3.5, an ecosystem which was becoming tapped out in terms of well-selling content.


----------



## Alphastream

jmucchiello said:


> The idea that OGL failed is somewhat silly. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. It created the largest network of RPG players, and those players all know how to play D&D3.x (and/or its variants). Most RPG players who know multiple systems, know some variant of D&D3.x.




The purpose of the OGL was two-fold. Which was foremost can be argued. One was to ensure that D&D would remain forever, because it could always be remade by anyone. A dying TSR could have locked up the game in the hands of lawyers for decades, so Peter _*Adkison *_wanted to prevent that possibility. Achieved very nicely. The other purpose was a financial model where, realistically, the operation of D&D would be gutted down to a bare minimum required to maintain the brand and the core books, while the OGL allowed others to create material. After an era where TSR created tons of products that were more expensive than their cover price (and therefore always sold at a loss), this likely seemed like a good idea. Ryan Dancey was still singing the praises of this model a while back. That idea, of third parties creating supplements and driving core book sales, never was attempted. But, I think that it would have fared poorly, for the same reason that WotC isn't making tons of money on 3.5 core books today. It is too easy to use the OGL for true competition (while still benefiting from 3E's material for free) and WotC never gets a penny. At the same time, I don't think any RPG company really wants to gut all of its writers and designers and just maintain a product core. I think it is a terrible plan and very much would doom that company to be completely blind and skill-less in the marketplace.

I suppose the OGL did enhance the network, but the network was already amazingly strong. D&D gross sales in 1981 were $12.9 Million. During the transition from 1E to 2E TSR sold 289,000 PHB's in 1998. When 3E released in 2000 (before any network effect), they sold 300,000 PHs in about 30 days (according to Ryan Dancey). 4E core book pre-orders in 2008 exceeded that, according to accounts.

Similarly, the number of adventures ordered at the start of the Living Forgotten Realms 4E campaign vastly exceeded any previous amount for the 3E Living Greyhawk campaign. 4E's D&D Encounters program (also running 3E and D&D Next) has been a great success. My local store saw more than 300 unique players, just in the first two seasons! Walk the D&D room at a PAX convention and it is filled with players that are aware of D&D as a brand but who are new to it or are only casual players. (The missing piece of the puzzle is making them stay active. I'll argue 3E didn't even get this crowd to the table, let alone try to keep them active.)

So, yeah, a network is important. But the DnD brand has always had a powerful network. I don't find the OGL to be about the network.


----------



## Wicht

Morrus said:


> Paizo got to start again with - effectively - 3.75; that's why. They weren't trying to continue selling sourcebooks for 3.5, an ecosystem which was becoming tapped out in terms of well-selling content.




I would counter that had more to do with the nature of the content being released then any actual problem people had with the ruleset. 

I think if WotC had gone the Pathfinder route, there would have been some grumbling, but they could have got a do-over without actually killing the golden goose.


----------



## jmucchiello

Alphastream said:


> The purpose of the OGL was two-fold. Which was foremost can be argued. One was to ensure that D&D would remain forever, because it could always be remade by anyone. A dying TSR could have locked up the game in the hands of lawyers for decades, so Peter Jackson wanted to prevent that possibility.



Director of the Hobbit? I think you mean Peter Adkinson.



> I suppose the OGL did enhance the network, but the network was already amazingly strong.



Yes, it was. The idea was to make it stronger. And not just in base game sales. If you are playing Champions you aren't playing D&D3.x. If you are playing Mutants and Masterminds, you basically are playing D&D3.x. And the next time you go to play a game, you'll probably stick close to a D&D3.x variant even if you don't pick D&D3.x itself as your next game. That's the kind of "lock in" the OGL was supposed to produce.



> So, yeah, a network is important. But the DnD brand has always had a powerful network. I don't find the OGL to be about the network.



That's the whole point of lock in. You can't tell people "we are locking you in" as they will rebel. You do it quietly and they don't "find the OGL to be about the network" even though it is.


----------



## darjr

Looks like Jay Little, the creator of Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars game was originally hired by FFG to write and create 4e products but the lack of an OGL helped put a kabosh on that. He goes on to say that lots of other 3pp abandoned 4e for similar reasons. It's in episode 2 of board game university a dice tower podcast  at about 14:17 into the podcast 
http://boardgameuniversity.libsyn.com/board-game-university-episode-2-jay-little


----------



## Morrus

jmucchiello said:


> Director of the Hobbit? I think you mean Peter Adkinson.




Or even Peter Adkison.


----------



## Alphastream

darjr said:


> Looks like Jay Little, the creator of Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars game was originally hired by FFG to write and create 4e products but the lack of an OGL helped put a kabosh on that. He goes on to say that lots of other 3pp abandoned 4e for similar reasons. It's in episode 2 of board game university a dice tower podcast  at about 14:17 into the podcast
> http://boardgameuniversity.libsyn.com/board-game-university-episode-2-jay-little



There is no doubt that the lack of a 4E OGL stopped 3rd parties from writing 4E material. That was likely the point. While an OGL is great for a 3rd party that wants to make money off of another's system, that isn't necessarily good for the industry (due to an over-emphasis/glut on a single game, in turn decreasing innovation) nor is it necessarily good for the game/brand and owning company (WotC and DnD don't seem to have significantly gained from the OGL, especially when one considers the net effect of competition from Paizo). 

I have no doubt that many freelancers wanted to transition directly from OGL 3E to the same for 4E. I believe in most respects that they and the hobby are now better off (presuming they are working on the many other exciting systems now finally seeing some attention thanks to Kickstarter and the lull while D&D Next goes through playtesting). Put another way: I would rather see an ex-Wizards or ex-d20 designer work on a Fiasco playset, Numenera project, Legend of the Five Rings sourcebook, new game on Kickstarter, etc. than to see that designer write yet another d20 OGL-based product that very few will see and which does so little for the hobby. I would certainly not want to see a bunch of OGL freelancers put together another DnD (3.90 or 4.50) instead of writing their own game... we don't need more of that. We already have spectacular DnD options.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Alphastream said:


> The biggest argument against the OGL is Paizo itself. The OGL prevented Wizards, for the first time, from just moving onto the next edition. Paizo could use the OGL to take away WotC's customer base, keeping them on an older edition - and without a single penny to WotC. The OGL has further enabled the OSR movement and various other competitive initiatives.




Wizards moved on to the next edition just fine. Some of us, hell, I think a fair number of us just didn't like what Wizards wanted us to move to. 

Paizo didnt TAKE away WOTC's customer base. WOTC didn't want that customer base anymore so we left. WOTC was after a simpler streamlined game and newer players. They and their more strident fans made that very clear on their message boards and here at ENWORLD. 

Before 4E i'd been on the TSR then WOTC teat. Still as a faithful supporter of the brand for over 20 years at the point of 4E's release in 2008 it was my prerogative NOT to support them anymore if they had a product that I didnt like. 

I'm fairly certain had Paizo NOT come along and produced Pathfinder I probably wouldn't be gaming any more. Instead I think I'm spending more money on RPG stuff than I've spent since the early days of 3E. Monthly AP sub, the RPG sub, the occasional cards, Player's Companion and Module purchase. On top of the Card game and mini's and pawns. That's money that's not going to WOTC true but it wouldnt have been going to ANYWAY. 

I'm still in the hobby because of the OGL. Because of the OGL I'm still playing/running a game that I enjoy playing/running. Maybe you dont like that fact but I'm fine with it. So from where I'm sitting the OGL is successful. Just not for who you want it to be successful for.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Alphastream said:


> I have no doubt that many freelancers wanted to transition directly from OGL 3E to the same for 4E. I believe in most respects that they and the hobby are now better off (presuming they are working on the many other exciting systems now finally seeing some attention thanks to Kickstarter and the lull while D&D Next goes through playtesting). Put another way: I would rather see an ex-Wizards or ex-d20 designer work on a Fiasco playset, Numenera project, Legend of the Five Rings sourcebook, new game on Kickstarter, etc. than to see that designer write yet another d20 OGL-based product that very few will see and which does so little for the hobby. I would certainly not want to see a bunch of OGL freelancers put together another DnD (3.90 or 4.50) instead of writing their own game... we don't need more of that. We already have spectacular DnD options.




Also about those newer non-OGL D20 games? 

I have the disposable income for a game like NUMENERA. At $60 I could afford to have it and get PDF's to run games for a table of people. But I cant afford to spend that money on a game that I'm not gonna play or that I cant drum up interest for. The same for 13th Age (which from what I understand hues a little to close to 4E for my tastes). 

So yes, I guess I see why it would be good for WOTC and whatever system they come out with that these designers ARENT supporting OGL and specifically Pathfinder based material. But just because they're out creating their own product even if it's someone like Monte Cook who I supported back in the Malhavoc days, if it's not a system that I'm interested in or can get people to play? My money doesn't go there.


----------



## Balesir

Alphastream said:


> D&D has never existed in a space where it lacked competition. We can read accounts going back to the very beginning and everyone has always been taking competition seriously. For example, the very first adventure was created by a third party, as was the first campaign setting. Those are good examples both of the benefits of competition and the existence of that competition. The competition was continual, from Wee Warriors (involving both competition and partnerships) to Numenera (involving former staff).



The fact that adventures and campaign settings were created by 3rd parties at the beginning actually shows that liberal licensing is a benefit and was, at that time, alive and well. TSR later clamped down on that - as big corporations are (mistakenly, in my view) wont to do.

Wee Warriors and Numenera I actually don't agree are competition for D&D. They are part of the "roleplaying hobby", for sure, but they don't really steal sales from D&D IME. They sweep up those seasoned gamers who want something different from D&D - and who, if they still want D&D as well - will buy both. After all, compared to a hobby like golf, roleplaying is cheap even if you buy three or four systems (or, speaking personally, many more than that!)



Alphastream said:


> This has never been a monopoly, though D&D has been dominant for the majority of its history. What is interesting about Paizo is that it is providing another D&D. As a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "I'm not sure it is good for the industry's top games to be D&D and D&D." Until very recently (thank you, Kickstarter), D&D and Pathfinder were so utterly dominant that all other systems were practically indie games. It wasn't good for the industry, because Paizo and WotC don't greatly benefit from cross-pollination. While they often intermix staff (a good example is Chris Sims, who worked at WotC, then at Paizo, then at WotC), the games are too similar and too rooted to truly inspire one another.



Pathfinder is, indeed, competition for D&D - and, like most competition, I think it's very healthy (even though I have no desire to run Pathfinder or 3.x again, personally).



Alphastream said:


> It is really only the recent arrival of Kickstarter that has created a platform for other games to attract greater notice. Of perhaps equal importance has been D&D Next. By creating a long playtest period it has encouraged many groups to consider options and play other games in addition to just D&D. We see that effect even with Paizo supporters, and it's a very healthy thing.



Kickstarter has been a great boon to creative competition all around, but I think that is a separate and not-really-related issue to the OGL.



Alphastream said:


> All of this is different from saying that an OGL is good because it challenges DnD. I really don't think it does. Wizards sees plenty of different freelancers, both new blood and old d20 contributors. It isn't missing out on seeing new ideas for D&D. Having an OGL wouldn't somehow change 'monopoly status', both because it isn't a monopoly and because if anything a dominant OGL would again hurt gaming by making DnD too big a thing compared to other games. As an example, consider when Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, Star Wars, and many other RPGs all went d20. While there were some good aspects to that, the majority of fans of those games will point to a non-d20 edition as their favorite. And every one of those games moved away from d20 to better represent their game. (Spycraft is doing so with its excellent upcoming third edition).



The OGL challenges the *manipulation* (or "management", if you will) of D&D, rather than D&D itself, precisely because it means older "editions" can be kept alive by fans. This is what I think is profoundly healthy. The OGL enabled the OSR movement as well as Pathfinder, remember.



Alphastream said:


> You made a number of points about free trade and the like, but they all rest on the concept that an OGL creates competition and new ideas, which I dispute. Especially as compared to a landscape where there is a single D&D with different RPGs rather than A) everyone writing for d20 or B) D&D and Pathfinder dominating. My hope is that D&D can be a great flagship brand for the hobby while other very different compelling RPGs provide a strong competition and influence. Either not having an OGL or having a restrictive OGL would help create that competition.



It's not the "generation of new" part of evolution that I think the OGL supports - it's the "fitness for purpose" part. Good evolution relies on two pillars - mutation (i.e. introduction of new ideas) and *natural* selection. The creator killing off old designs because they are inconvenient to their business plan is NOT in any sense "natural". Once made, creative products should be left available to thrive or die on their own merits - that is the basis of evolution. And it is what the OGL promotes. The tragedy of 4E will be if, instead of being left available to continue or wither according to its continued popularity it is made unavailable and arbitrarily "killed" to make way for DDN.



Alphastream said:


> I don't buy this at all. 3.5 was dying a certain death when WotC started 4E. We were deep into "Complete Adventuring Companion" type of material. There was practically nothing left to sell, and fans had been clear that they didn't want another minor edition change (they hated the .5). Sales were dropping and there was nothing left to offer gamers. Even books like the Book of Nine Swords were doing poorly, from all accounts. Importantly, the d20 market did nothing to change this. Nothing at all. It was not vastly pumping up the sales of core books at that time to where WotC could sit back. It was not creating amazing innovation that reinvigorated the market. Not at all. Instead, the only thing that reinvigorated the market was Wizards leaving it. Only when fans were faced with having to play a very different edition were they able to be open to accepting a 3.75. And that was only possible due to the OGL.



If 3.x was dying it seems to me it was because WotC wasn't being imaginitive about where they could take it. Paizo have done a bang-up job in that department.

I suppose part of my difference of opinion with you is that I think we really only saw the early days of the OGL with 3.x. It was a seismic shift in the marketplace and was always going to take years - maybe decades - to really play out, IMV. Sure, early on, it caused a majority of the RPG "industry" to hop on its bandwagon, but that was really coming to an end before 4E was announced. The (inevitable) cruft had been mostly winnowed out and the new enterprises were beginning to branch out into developing new systems of their own devising. Kickstarter has accelerated that by reducing massively the risk inherent in such a move, but it was in its initial stages already, AIR. And Storygames and such were initiated on the OGL's watch, besides.



ShinHakkaider said:


> I'm fairly certain had Paizo NOT come along and produced Pathfinder I probably wouldn't be gaming any more. Instead I think I'm spending more money on RPG stuff than I've spent since the early days of 3E. Monthly AP sub, the RPG sub, the occasional cards, Player's Companion and Module purchase. On top of the Card game and mini's and pawns. That's money that's not going to WOTC true but it wouldnt have been going to ANYWAY.



Not a reply to [MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION], but I see this as evidence for what I'm saying above. Competition to D&D doesn't come from other RPGs - it comes from other editions of D&D. That's simply the way it is; other RPGs are played by those who either dislike D&D or are invested enough in the hobby to play (and buy) multiple RPGs. This really is a case of "I disagree with what you (ShinHakkaider) like, but will defend to the death your right to like (and be able to buy) such stuff


----------



## Alphastream

ShinHakkaider said:


> Paizo didnt TAKE away WOTC's customer base. WOTC didn't want that customer base anymore so we left. WOTC was after a simpler streamlined game and newer players.




Every gamer's story and perspective will be different. We will all like different editions to a greater or lesser extent for various reasons. But, I don't at all agree that Wizards was trying to alienate or discard any part of its 3E (or pre-3E) audience. Consider the gamers who hated both 3E and 4E and stuck with 2E. Was Wizards discarding them when it went to 3E? Of course not. For every edition there is a genuine attempt to make the game better. Now, different editions do have different aspects to them. There is no doubt that Wizards was also trying to make the game more approachable for a casual gamer. I fully support that. When I played 3E living campaigns it was absolutely scary to see how our gamer demographic was aging. There was a real danger there that the hobby might shrink very rapidly. Many factors have taken us away from that perilous cliff - certainly the new "geek is cool" mentality we see in the media. But, it has also been due to good branding, marketing, and various RPGs (including 4E) being accessible. There are tons of new, casual, and diverse gamers playing D&D at Encounters and conventions. PAX has for years been an unbelievable change in demographics. I routinely have had tables where one gamer is an old retired gamer trying the game again, one is a casual gamer, and the rest are new. And half that table might be female and half of the overall table is in their 20s. It has taken until this year, but Gen Con is beginning to show signs of this as well. 

We will all have different reasons for liking/disliking a game, but 4E's accessibility was an attempt to grow the entire gaming hobby, not to throw you or anyone else out of it.

What the OGL enabled was, for the first time, an option. You could remain on a previous edition _and another company could support you, competing with the new edition and winning over those old customers_. That's the huge change. When WotC went to 3E, if you didn't like it, you had to choose to just stay on existing material (and create your own) or accept the new edition. Many of us hated a new edition but spent years on it because that was the better option. Support is a big deal (think of how exciting every Paizo release is). My gaming group largely despised 2E, but we all purchased a metric ton of 2E material and freely intermixed 2E into our 1E games for years. I didn't at first like 3E, but to play organized play I had to. I came to absolutely love it for many years. The OGL made that an entirely different process. Had the OGL existed when I was a 1E fan, it could have kept me from ever benefiting from what 2E and 3E had to offer. That would have been a shame, and a big loss for TSR/WotC. 



ShinHakkaider said:


> I'm still in the hobby because of the OGL. Because of the OGL I'm still playing/running a game that I enjoy playing/running. Maybe you dont like that fact but I'm fine with it. So from where I'm sitting the OGL is successful. Just not for who you want it to be successful for.



You misunderstand me. I love gaming in all shapes and forms. There is no wrong way to game and I'm glad to hear about anyone who finds a reason to stay a gamer. But, the OGL was problematic for WotC. WotC should want to be successful and should very carefully consider any OGL for D&D Next.


----------



## Alphastream

Balesir said:


> It's not the "generation of new" part of evolution that I think the OGL supports - it's the "fitness for purpose" part. Good evolution relies on two pillars - mutation (i.e. introduction of new ideas) and *natural* selection. The creator killing off old designs because they are inconvenient to their business plan is NOT in any sense "natural". Once made, creative products should be left available to thrive or die on their own merits - that is the basis of evolution. And it is what the OGL promotes. The tragedy of 4E will be if, instead of being left available to continue or wither according to its continued popularity it is made unavailable and arbitrarily "killed" to make way for DDN.



You made some really great points in your response. I really enjoyed reading them and mulling them over, thanks! To the above, I have issues with "inconvenient to their business plan". Every responsible company has business plans. Every company should want profit and most should want to grow. Customers should want companies in their hobby to grow. I wish upon every RPG company plenty of growth and profit, because that grows our hobby. But, the RPG model has so far shown that after a while we see stagnation. Every RPG wrestles with the problem that each successive book will see declining interest. Out of 1,000 gamers, 500 might like the core book. Only 200 might care for the DM book. Of those 200, only 160 might like the book on undead. And only 100 might like the book on a forest setting. RPG companies wrestle with that, because it is a cycle that kills business. With 3E, that cycle had fully played out. And the customer base was already seeing Wizards as having pressed too far with 3.5 on top of 3.0. Only an outside competitor could, under the very true auspices of "you don't have to leave 3E", update the rules and republish everything. That was key. Now it wasn't evil WotC republishing our game for money-grubbing reasons, it was Paizo swooping in to republish our game so we could keep playing the edition.

The same is true for 4E. It's a complete edition. While we can each consider a book or two that could be added, or a setting, all of those would have very poor sales. Wizards did try to reinvigorate the edition with Essentials, but that clearly did not work. (Could it have? Maybe. WotC certainly mismanaged and mis-marketed Essentials - any time you have to constantly explain what it is, it was poorly done.) I really don't think the chances are high that 3E or 4E could have been successfully relaunched, or that enough interesting material could have been added to keep the company afloat. (And we should all want WotC to remain afloat). 



Balesir said:


> If 3.x was dying it seems to me it was because WotC wasn't being imaginitive about where they could take it. Paizo have done a bang-up job in that department.



They have. But as I wrote above, I don't think the issue was a lack of imagination. After all, look at how incredibly creative 4E was! It was the most radical reinvisioning of D&D ever and a deliberate attempt to change everything problematic about previous editions. Wouldn't work for everyone, of course (no edition does), but the WotC staff did not at all lack in imagination. (We could perhaps also talk about how Skills & Powers didn't reinvigorate 2E's flagging sales and how Book of Nine Swords did not reinvigorate 3.5's sales. Visionary products don't seem to save an aging line. The same will most likely be true of Pathfinder some day... we already see many repeated books with diminishing returns... one Paizo designer said at a recent convention "I wasn't sure I could find something interesting to write, but the book ended up pretty cool." That's a sure sign of those diminishing returns.)


----------



## Jan van Leyden

Balesir said:


> If 3.x was dying it seems to me it was because WotC wasn't being imaginitive about where they could take it. Paizo have done a bang-up job in that department.




This I really doubt. If WotC would have applied the same changes to the 3.5 corpus as Paizo did, they would have had three options. Either sell it as one or more add-ons ("Power-up Classes", "Revised Combat") or make a new (sub-)edition (3.75), or in the form of new printings of the core books and perhaps offering changes as free downloads. In neither case could WotC have been giving the "good guy" comparable to Paizo, the "saviour of D&D".


----------



## Balesir

Alphastream said:


> You made some really great points in your response. I really enjoyed reading them and mulling them over, thanks!



Thanks for acknowledging them! My arguments are far from perfect, but they have a core about which I have thought reasonably deeply.



Alphastream said:


> To the above, I have issues with "inconvenient to their business plan". Every responsible company has business plans. Every company should want profit and most should want to grow. Customers should want companies in their hobby to grow. I wish upon every RPG company plenty of growth and profit, because that grows our hobby.



Maybe the wording I chose was a little brutal, there 

Of course all companies need not just a business plan but a coherent business model that will generate profit commensurate with their capitalisation (or better). I think, however, that Walter White can offer us a lesson (several, actually) about business. Just because something is convenient for an easy business plan doesn't mean it's a good idea. Robbing a bank would, after all, be a quick and effective way to get a capital injection - but it has serious downsides... I'm naturalised to living in Yorkshire these days - we say what we mean bluntly and without ceremony up here! Cutting off fans of older products to "encourage" growth in the new one is, to some degree, a smart and effective business plan - but it has serious downsides, especially in the longer term, that I think make it a very poor one for the customer, for the market and, at the end of the day, for the health of the originating business.



Alphastream said:


> But, the RPG model has so far shown that after a while we see stagnation. Every RPG wrestles with the problem that each successive book will see declining interest. Out of 1,000 gamers, 500 might like the core book. Only 200 might care for the DM book. Of those 200, only 160 might like the book on undead. And only 100 might like the book on a forest setting. RPG companies wrestle with that, because it is a cycle that kills business. With 3E, that cycle had fully played out.



ONE RPG model has shown that. I don't accept that this is the only available business model for RPGs. It may be a productive one in the short term, but I think it sows (has sown) the seeds of its own destruction.

Other models have been tried and have proved at least marginally effective. WotC itself, before it struck M:tGold, had one going with The Primal Order line. Steve Jackson Games and Chaosium have others that don't rely entirely on expanding player options and an edition treadmill (even though SJG gets *this* close...) Oh, and take a look at Columbia Games and Kelestia Productions with Hârn - a very different kettle of fish, for sure!



Alphastream said:


> And the customer base was already seeing Wizards as having pressed too far with 3.5 on top of 3.0. Only an outside competitor could, under the very true auspices of "you don't have to leave 3E", update the rules and republish everything. That was key. Now it wasn't evil WotC republishing our game for money-grubbing reasons, it was Paizo swooping in to republish our game so we could keep playing the edition.



That helped Paizo, for sure, but I think there was another way - more below.



Alphastream said:


> The same is true for 4E. It's a complete edition. While we can each consider a book or two that could be added, or a setting, all of those would have very poor sales. Wizards did try to reinvigorate the edition with Essentials, but that clearly did not work. (Could it have? Maybe. WotC certainly mismanaged and mis-marketed Essentials - any time you have to constantly explain what it is, it was poorly done.) I really don't think the chances are high that 3E or 4E could have been successfully relaunched, or that enough interesting material could have been added to keep the company afloat. (And we should all want WotC to remain afloat).



Not immediately, perhaps - but see my expanded remarks below. I think 4E still has huge potential as a procedural system for adventuring play expanded way beyond what it currently covers.



Alphastream said:


> But as I wrote above, I don't think the issue was a lack of imagination. After all, look at how incredibly creative 4E was! It was the most radical reinvisioning of D&D ever and a deliberate attempt to change everything problematic about previous editions. Wouldn't work for everyone, of course (no edition does), but the WotC staff did not at all lack in imagination. (We could perhaps also talk about how Skills & Powers didn't reinvigorate 2E's flagging sales and how Book of Nine Swords did not reinvigorate 3.5's sales. Visionary products don't seem to save an aging line. The same will most likely be true of Pathfinder some day... we already see many repeated books with diminishing returns... one Paizo designer said at a recent convention "I wasn't sure I could find something interesting to write, but the book ended up pretty cool." That's a sure sign of those diminishing returns.)





Jan van Leyden said:


> This I really doubt. If WotC would have applied the same changes to the 3.5 corpus as Paizo did, they would have had three options. Either sell it as one or more add-ons ("Power-up Classes", "Revised Combat") or make a new (sub-)edition (3.75), or in the form of new printings of the core books and perhaps offering changes as free downloads. In neither case could WotC have been giving the "good guy" comparable to Paizo, the "saviour of D&D".



These two posts really attacked the same point I made and it's a good observation that demands a full answer.

Over the last few days I have got around to reading (or, at least, starting to read) Robin Laws' "Hillfolk" game. In this game he expands in a practical game-system way on the thoughts he put forth in his "Hamlet's Hit Points". Some of his thought I am finding quite profound; here, for example, is an excerpt from a part ot the introduction he titles "Why This Game Exists":

"Scenes in stories can be divided into two categories: procedural and dramatic. In a procedural scene, the characters confront and overcome external obstacles. They fight opponents, conduct chases, investigate mysteries, explore unfamiliar environments, and so on. When they succeed by talking to others, it is by negotiating with characters who exert no particular emotional hold over them, over practical matters.

In a dramatic scene, the main characters confront internal obstacles, seeking emotional reward from people they care deeply about, for good or ill.

Historically, roleplaying games have concentrated on procedural action, giving short shrift to dramatic interplay. They’re based on adventure genres, which focus on the external over the internal."

Now, I'm not going to suggest that D&D, or any other RPG, should start covering those "dramatic" scenes as a focus and impinging on Hillfolks' turf. I believe strongly in focus and clear design intent in RPGs, and D&D's focus and strength has always lain in the procedural (and I could define it further, but now's not the time). But, by "lack of imagination" in my previous post what I really meant was "unwillingness to look at the game in a little wider a context - in a broader way".

Toes have been dipped in waters the odd time. Birthright gave us "Realm Play" rules that were, in themselves, elegant and remarkable. Sadly they were never integrated too successfully with the "adventuring" rules, in my view, making the game just a little bit incoherent (in a non-Forge-y way).

Imagine an alternate world where, instead of ditching 3.x and the OGL, WotC had:

a) Gone ahead and made 4E; it was too good in many ways to miss and they had some really radical and effective solutions to the problems of 3.x with adventure play.

b) But, while doing this, they kept 3.x in print (without much new material) and supported by Dungeon and Dragon (maybe even with a few articles from staffers contributed).

c) As 4E rolled out, "conversions" and ways to incorporate 4E's more "old edition fitting" ideas are published - either in the magazines or as add-ons for 3.x.

d) Both 3.x and 4E are expanded (with optional, modular material) to cover all sorts of other "procedural" scenes (according to Robin Laws' categorisation). The rigour of 4E brought to tense negotiations or paranoid exploration could be great! And the modules could be made to fit reasonably (with a bit of tweaking - more magazine articles) with 3.x (and maybe earlier editions, although the lack of a sound underlying structure might hinder, there).

e) Eventually, by modules and variants, 3.5 could actually be revised as Paizo has done, by WotC.

f) Adventures and settings could be published that can suit all editions - with "Cliff notes" about differences and modifications needed for each edition.

The overall aim is to generate an ecosystem of game systems and game components that feed back to teach the designers what works and what doesn't "in the wild" for each procedural area of the game. Where designers from competing companies are able to "mix and match" to create things that are faster, meaner and smarter than the systems that came before - as demonstrated by their longevity and prominence in the marketplace*.

Would all this need to be slower than the 4E development we saw? Yes, certainly. But the haste required was predicated partly on the need to torpedo 3.x anyway - with a tiny bit more 3.x support while 4E was in the works (and with development started ealier, too, most likely) that might have been less of a problem#. Was all this occasioned by the demand from Hasbro for higher, faster returns? Quite possibly; but that doesn't make it an impossible business plan - just a more moderate one.

*: Someone a while back mentioned WotC trying to get hold of the licensed marketplace - that strikes me as a pretty fair idea, provided the temptation to abuse the position is avoided (which would have the same deleterious effects as ditching the OGL would have).

#: Look at the time taken over DDN to see this, and consider that if the magazines had stayed with Paizo as OGL vehicles, using them to support 3.x as 4E was built would have required much less resource than has clearly proven too much for WotC during the current edition-switch...


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Alphastream said:


> We will all have different reasons for liking/disliking a game, but 4E's accessibility was an attempt to grow the entire gaming hobby, not to throw you or anyone else out of it.




I'm not sure that it succeeded at doing the first but it did almost succeed at doing the second. But admittedly that was my fault as well. That's what I get for being almost unerringly loyal to a brand as opposed to the game. 



Alphastream said:


> What the OGL enabled was, for the first time, an option. You could remain on a previous edition _and another company could support you, competing with the new edition and winning over those old customers_. That's the huge change.




Which was, IMHO, a great, GREAT thing. Especially for a system like 3x where I used reliable 3rd party materials to kitbash rules and subsystems to get a game to exactly where I needed it to be. As opposed to building it all myself from scratch. All of the various settings like Scarred Lands and Bluffside were a boon. Things like Green Ronin's BOOK OF THE RIGHTEOUS were a big help. Granted it may have taken a little while to figure out the more reliable 3rd party companies (ENWORLD was a big help for this...) but once that happened the level of support, quality and variety was fantastic. But if you and the OGL opponents had/have your way the only place I would be able to get this material from would be WOTC.  




Alphastream said:


> When WotC went to 3E, if you didn't like it, you had to choose to just stay on existing material (and create your own) or accept the new edition.




I agree with the 1st thing that you said but the second thing? Well that's alien to me. Accept or play an edition that I dont like because why again? Everyone else is doing it? Isnt this supposed to be fun? Since when is playing a game that you dont like or care for fun. And please lets not go to the whole "youre doing it with freinds thing" because there are probably a bunch of other things you can be doing with your freinds that dont involve you playing a game that you dont like for a few hours.



Alphastream said:


> Many of us hated a new edition but spent years on it because that was the better option. Support is a big deal (think of how exciting every Paizo release is).




Again this is alien to me. Spending years playing an edition that you hate sounds, quite frankly, ridiculous to me. I played 2nd edition and while it had some issues I didn't hate it. It was close enough to 1E where I could still use most of my older material to run the games that I liked. It was only until after Skills and Powers came out that I abandoned the system and really didn't look back for a long time. I really disliked Skills and Powers. So I stopped playing and running games. 




Alphastream said:


> My gaming group largely despised 2E, but we all purchased a metric ton of 2E material and freely intermixed 2E into our 1E games for years.




Wow. EDIT: I needed to clarify here. I only say "WOW" because this is very similar to what I did with my group. Except I saw it as intergrating/intermixing 1E into 2E. Not vices versa. Not that it makes a huge difference either way... 



Alphastream said:


> I didn't at first like 3E, but to play organized play I had to. I came to absolutely love it for many years.



 This sounds like Helsinke Syndrome to me. Also I despise Organize Play, but I see now why you may have stuck with a system that you didnt care for. Still I'd just as soon as not play than play a game that I dont like or hate or despise.



Alphastream said:


> The OGL made that an entirely different process. Had the OGL existed when I was a 1E fan, it could have kept me from ever benefiting from what 2E and 3E had to offer. That would have been a shame, and a big loss for TSR/WotC.




But didnt you dislike and hate those systems? I'm confused here. Because you learned to like them through sheer sutbborness to support the brand? Again, not my cup of tea here. If I'm spending my money on a hobby I at least want it to be something that I like and am having fun doing. I dont want to suffer through it just for the sake of brand loyalty. 




Alphastream said:


> You misunderstand me. I love gaming in all shapes and forms. There is no wrong way to game and I'm glad to hear about anyone who finds a reason to stay a gamer. But, the OGL was problematic for WotC. WotC should want to be successful and should very carefully consider any OGL for D&D Next.




Youre right I really dont understand you. You say that there is no wrong way to game. But you're basically for limiting what other people want to play by eliminating or limiting the OGL. You want people to basically either play the latest version of D&D or something completely different. Because if people are allowed to stay playing whatever version that they like that takes away from WOTC and the brand and that's bad? How is that bad for me as a consumer and gamer? Because I gotta tell you, I've been doing just fine spending my money elsewhere and playing what I want to play. Happily and not hating or despising it.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Alphastream said:


> The same will most likely be true of Pathfinder some day...




Agreed. 



Alphastream said:


> we already see many repeated books with diminishing returns...



"Many repeated books with diminishing returns?" Aside from the Bestiaries what books are these? Because overall Paizo is putting out FEWER hardcover books than WOTC did during the 3x era. 

They're basically releasing 3 Hardcovers a year (I'm pretty positive that it's not more than 3) on of those books is almost always a Bestiary. But there was one year where they released an NPC Codex in lieu of another monster book. There's a rule book (along the lines of APG, UC, UM) and something odd like Mythic Adventures or Ultimate Campaign. 



Alphastream said:


> one Paizo designer said at a recent convention "I wasn't sure I could find something interesting to write, but the book ended up pretty cool." That's a sure sign of those diminishing returns.)




Name or quote and in what context please. Otherwise this just seems like a random swipe at Paizo and their staff.


----------



## Alphastream

Balesir said:


> Imagine an alternate world where, instead of ditching 3.x and the OGL, WotC had




I love the ideas. BUT, what you propose all rests on 3E pulling in enough sales to merit the approach. It is highly unlikely that it could have. The diminishing returns were already there on 3E. The Book of Nine Swords was already out. It was clear that the edition was done for WotC. They didn't need to print more copies of existing material, because the material was already sitting around all over the place. You can get pristine copies of just about any late-3E material... never played and cheap!

The OGL adds to the misery. Try to support both and you further encourage your base not to try out your new edition. 

And every RPG company struggles with the now vs the new. Most small RPG companies can barely handle creating a few short adventures and sourcebooks for their main line and then also adding a second line. Most successful small-medium companies (Evil Hat is a good example) talk constantly about the difficulty of managing many freelancers on several projects across a couple of product lines. At the large RPG companies (Wizards, Paizo), it is a major undertaking to deliver on the quality expectations of the market. A single gameday adventure takes months of coordination and planning, writing, developing, editing, layout, and production... even when it isn't a for-sale product! The result is great quality and a vastly (in most cases) offering, but it takes significant resources. Follow the tweets of designers like Paizo's Logan Bonner and we can hear them talk about how much they have to do to keep things going. 

It's an even bigger challenge to try to also overlap with a new edition. We see WotC 'crying uncle' and letting their online magazines lie fallow while they finish up Next, and they have the most resources in the industry. But the cost of not doing so is too high. Everything rides on that new edition. 

You said that diminishing returns and new editions isn't the only way, but has there been a major RPG that truly did well with a different model for more than a decade? 

I hear you on the magazines, as it was clearly painful for WotC to create a proper publishing process. The idea to bring the magazines in-house could have been an assessment on costs (which could easily have been a bad idea profit-wise) at a time when they were changing the whole format anyway, but likely were heavily due to a desire to move away from the OGL model and control content. The benefit has been that the magazines have created 100% official content that really did work tremendously well with the rules rather than constantly being at odds with them. Further, there has been great value to WotC from having the intelligence inside. There was a time when I wasn't confident WotC understood its own game. I would speak to designers and they had never heard of things that every gamer was wrestling with. That wasn't at all a problem with the mid and late stages of 4E's lifecycle, though it was a huge problem with 3E and early 4E. It has resulted in great relationships between freelancers and the company. Rob Schawlb is an obvious choice, but also a host of lesser known guys. Both Paizo and WotC now have great ways of identifying talent and continually assessing the cream of the crop. That's a great benefit.


----------



## Balesir

Alphastream said:


> I love the ideas. BUT, what you propose all rests on 3E pulling in enough sales to merit the approach. It is highly unlikely that it could have. The diminishing returns were already there on 3E. The Book of Nine Swords was already out. It was clear that the edition was done for WotC. They didn't need to print more copies of existing material, because the material was already sitting around all over the place. You can get pristine copies of just about any late-3E material... never played and cheap!



That's true that you can find them - but I wouldn't call them cheap, at least not here in the UK. Plus - since some of the proposed moves I list are actually being developed by WotC now - there are the "Premium" versions available (with errata included).

But the whole thing is a bit of "wishes for fishes" thing anyway - we are where we are and WotC didn't go down the "live and let live" route. To do so might arguably have called for starting on 4E earlier (but did I hear something about an earlier start that actually was aborted and restarted? I may be wrong on that). But, just as now, 3E pulling in enough sales was not an actual hard limitation with M:tG filling the cash cow role. It was "necessary" only in the minds of those directing the business plan due to their assumed world-view. A different business plan would have required a different set of expectations and assumptions, naturally.



Alphastream said:


> The OGL adds to the misery. Try to support both and you further encourage your base not to try out your new edition.



But that's the natural state of play in a competitive market, anyway! You compete with what is already available - that's business! Imagine if a different company had made 4E - or if D&D hadn't had a dominant position in the market at the time 4E was released. In that circumstance 4E would have had to compete with 3.x; that's the "natural" way of things. The fact that WotC could frig the market because they held a dominant position (though perhaps not as dominant as they assumed!) was the oddity, here - not the possibility that 4E might have to compete with what was already available on a reasonably even playing field.



Alphastream said:


> And every RPG company struggles with the now vs the new. Most small RPG companies can barely handle creating a few short adventures and sourcebooks for their main line and then also adding a second line. Most successful small-medium companies (Evil Hat is a good example) talk constantly about the difficulty of managing many freelancers on several projects across a couple of product lines. At the large RPG companies (Wizards, Paizo), it is a major undertaking to deliver on the quality expectations of the market. A single gameday adventure takes months of coordination and planning, writing, developing, editing, layout, and production... even when it isn't a for-sale product! The result is great quality and a vastly (in most cases) offering, but it takes significant resources. Follow the tweets of designers like Paizo's Logan Bonner and we can hear them talk about how much they have to do to keep things going.



Yeah, life is tough when you have to compete on even terms. Who knew? 



Alphastream said:


> It's an even bigger challenge to try to also overlap with a new edition. We see WotC 'crying uncle' and letting their online magazines lie fallow while they finish up Next, and they have the most resources in the industry. But the cost of not doing so is too high. Everything rides on that new edition.



If they had left the 'zines with Paizo the effort would have been much reduced - the occasional article and teasers for the new edition instead of all the hassle of publishing.



Alphastream said:


> You said that diminishing returns and new editions isn't the only way, but has there been a major RPG that truly did well with a different model for more than a decade?



That depends what you mean by "did well". The Core-Splats-New Edition model is a short-term bubble model; it has booms (and busts). But there are several companies that have been doing OK - keeping a product line going in a low-key way with decent (but not stellar) sales, enough to keep the business going for year after year. Pelgrane Press started in 1999 and have a very nice stable of systems and some established writers associated with them. Atlas Games have been around since at least 2004 and have a nice portfolio. Steve Jackson Games still has GURPS and a range around that. Columbia Games have been publishing Hârn Materials solidly since 1983; sure, they are not a market leader (nor likely to become one), but longevity has to count for something in a single brand, surely? Solid, long term quality with open products (GURPS can be used for many genres/settings, Hârn can be used with many game systems) and a committment to the customers is not a "sexy" way to do business - but it's one that lasts and it's one I am increasingly enamoured by as a customer.



Alphastream said:


> I hear you on the magazines, as it was clearly painful for WotC to create a proper publishing process. The idea to bring the magazines in-house could have been an assessment on costs (which could easily have been a bad idea profit-wise) at a time when they were changing the whole format anyway, but likely were heavily due to a desire to move away from the OGL model and control content. The benefit has been that the magazines have created 100% official content that really did work tremendously well with the rules rather than constantly being at odds with them. Further, there has been great value to WotC from having the intelligence inside.



OK, but intelligence can be bought - quite possibly for less than it would cost to run the magazine operation (especially including setup costs, as you highlight).

I think the main driver was probably the desire to eliminate support for 3e - and I think that was a bad move.



Alphastream said:


> There was a time when I wasn't confident WotC understood its own game. I would speak to designers and they had never heard of things that every gamer was wrestling with. That wasn't at all a problem with the mid and late stages of 4E's lifecycle, though it was a huge problem with 3E and early 4E. It has resulted in great relationships between freelancers and the company. Rob Schawlb is an obvious choice, but also a host of lesser known guys. Both Paizo and WotC now have great ways of identifying talent and continually assessing the cream of the crop. That's a great benefit.



I agree that feedback from the marketplace was sorely needed (and apparently lacking) in WotC during 3E and early 4E - but you say yourself that Paizo has achieved the same 'connection' as WotC has, now, so it clearly isn't an issue connected to the OGL. In fact, I could argue that the tendency of WotC to be insular while the OGL was active was a major part of their problem with managing the OGL.

It's funny that the design team trumpeted that they started on the DDN process by going back and playing old editions of D&D; with or without OGL supplements, I wonder? And what about the OSR? Surely, professional game designers should be encouraged at all times to be aware of and conversant with the "state of the art"? Feedback from the customers can be crucial, here, certainly - but the design team should still be trying out what the competition are coming out with, it seems to me. In this respect, swapping of staff back and forth between game companies is a good thing, not a "problem".

Plagiarism - of a sort - is a natural and even desirable part of any creative business. The line between "using the best state of the art" and "ripping off someone else's product" is a narrow one, but one where a fair degree of precedent exists to guide us*. Let standards arise, let licensing become considered normal and grow more relaxed and let natural (but not manic) competition have its head and I think you'll see a more healthy market, a more healthy hobby and a more healthy set of companies in the RPG "industry".

*: That's not to say that I don't think the legal structures and processes around IP aren't in dire need of reform, both here in Europe and (even more so) in the USA. Big companies can get away with far too much these days without the case ever being tried in court (which most likely would and should go poorly for them if it were actually to happen).


----------



## Alphastream

ShinHakkaider said:


> But if you and the OGL opponents had/have your way the only place I would be able to get this material from would be WOTC.



With 4E there has been a wealth of content, both official and unofficial. While the unofficial material has mostly been fan-generated, it has at times been incredibly useful and influential. I've met tons of DMs that transformed their campaigns or adventures based on free material online, all while still buying official content. The best example of this may be Fourthcore, significant enough to be called a 'movement' by many. While what it brought forth wasn't always for everyone, it influenced most 4E gamers in some way. For me, a reminder of the classic feel of older adventures (absent too often in published 3E and 4E adventures) where adventuring held a palpable sense of mystery, discovery, and danger. I could go on, but suffice to say that non-WotC material was/is widely available online and significant in nature. Sure, there weren't many officially published for-sale third-party products. Most of us didn't need them with all of the very good official content. 

Something interesting to note is how 4E measurably improved over time. Though others have claimed we needed outside influences to achieve change (and thus an OGL), Wizards made tremendous improvements and innovations to the line over time. Compare the far superior Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium to the previous Adventurer's Vault, the superior Monster Vaults to the earlier Monster Manuals, and the Gardmore Abbey adventure to previous adventures. 

The idea behind not having an OGL isn't to make life for gamers worse. It is simply that, look, life was just fine without one, the benefits of one are minor, and the downsides to the company and even the hobby are considerable. Those downsides to the hobby include having third parties overly focused on a single game, rather than out creating their own cool RPGs or system neutral material. With Paizo, for example, the number of monsters is staggering. It's really okay for third parties to stop making new monsters and create system neutral material with how we could use existing monsters in better ways, or just go create their own games. That's how we end up with Dungeon World and 13th Age and other innovations instead of a "d20 complete guide to (insert name of obscure monster here)".



ShinHakkaider said:


> Accept or play an edition that I dont like because why again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, generally, it takes gamers a while to like a new edition. It took me a while to like 3E. When I had played enough 3E to burn out, I was still resistant to what I saw in 4E. But, I gave it a try and started to see why it was a very fun and excellent edition. Previous to the OGL, 99% of gamers would stick with a new edition and try it out, learning its positive qualities and usually getting hooked. We saw with 4E plenty of gamers call it an MMO and refuse to even try it. They could do that in part because the OGL enabled competitors to keep adding new material to an old edition - a massive sea change for DnD. Facilitating ways for your customer base to stay on an old edition is brutal in an industry where you have to launch new editions to have a chance to be profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> ShinHakkaider said:
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like Helsinke Syndrome to me. Also I despise Organize Play, but I see now why you may have stuck with a system that you didnt care for. Still I'd just as soon as not play than play a game that I dont like or hate or despise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To add perspective, I didn't like Skills and Powers. I saw it as pure power-gaming and a distortion of what I liked. I wanted to refuse myself from even trying 3E because of my "principles". But, I wanted to play organized play living campaigns and therefore gave it a chance. It won me over very quickly. BUT, it was critical that I didn't have something pulling me away. I didn't have a competitor offering me lots of fresh 1E content. Moving forward made sense, so I gave the edition a try long enough to learn that I had been wrong and that my "principles" were compatible with this game. I've learned a lot over the years - I'm not resistant to change these days and I give new games far more of a chance to sink their teeth into me rather than dismissing something outright based on a preconceived notion of what I do and don't like.
> 
> Speaking of that, you really should give organized play another chance. It has changed a lot on the Wizards side. Events like Vault of the Dracolich and Candlekeep have brought some of the best of organized play excitement without the "old grognard network" or other issues that hurt living campaigns. It's good fun DnD. (I'm a co-author for both of the ones I mentioned, so I'm biased, but I also think the upcoming Legacy of the Crystal Shard launch event is a really fun introductory gameday adventure).
> 
> 
> 
> ShinHakkaider said:
> 
> 
> 
> But didnt you dislike and hate those systems? I'm confused here. Because you learned to like them through sheer sutbborness to support the brand? Again, not my cup of tea here. If I'm spending my money on a hobby I at least want it to be something that I like and am having fun doing. I dont want to suffer through it just for the sake of brand loyalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate may be too strong a word. I had preconceived notions and preferences. Everyone does. I had the choice of accepting them so I could have new content, or sticking to just my old edition content. Having new content is huge, so I would dip my toes in the water. Before you knew it, I would end up being a fan. (With 3E and 4E, a huge fan. With 2E, a fan of much of the supplemental material). An OGL changes that. It makes it so I have an incentive to never leave my current state (because there is fresh material) and never test/challenge my preconceptions and preferences.
> 
> 
> 
> ShinHakkaider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre right I really dont understand you. You say that there is no wrong way to game. But you're basically for limiting what other people want to play by eliminating or limiting the OGL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully I've made myself clearer. The OGL is actually what creates limits!
> - If the OGL isn't good for a company, then they shouldn't have one. They have a necessity to be profitable, and we should want that for them because it is good for the hobby.
> - If the OGL encourages third parties to churn out content (especially poor content) for a single game, then the OGL is hurting the game by creating a glut of content and lowering the overall quality of the game.
> - If the OGL prevents gamers from giving new editions a fair chance, then it is a problem for the company and even for gamers. Gamers should be open to new games and are usually better off trying many games rather than settling into a single game/edition for perpetuity.
> - If the OGL encourages multiple versions of DnD, that can create a hobby where the top games are DnD, DnD, DnD, etc. That isn't good for the hobby. It is a stronger game when companies are creating real challenges in the form of different games with real innovation. Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, FIASCO, FATE, Numenera... those are different systems that truly innovate and grow the hobby.
> - Freelancers are better off writing for a variety of systems than for a single OGL-based system. They will be better over time if they write a FIASCO playset, FATE adventure, and an article for Dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Alphastream

ShinHakkaider said:


> "Many repeated books with diminishing returns?" Aside from the Bestiaries what books are these? Because overall Paizo is putting out FEWER hardcover books than WOTC did during the 3x era.



I don't know how the volume will compare over time, but Paizo publishes at a healthy clip. We've had Adventure Paths based on desert, ice, sea, pirates, undead, Asian nations... I'm sure I'm forgetting a few tropes, but at some point we've hit most people's preferences. We've had obvious and non-obvious new classes. We've gone beyond the core mythological creatures and into the weird. We've published books with names like "Ultimate" and "Advanced". It's very similar to Complete Arcane and Complete Mage, or Player's Handbook II. What's beyond Advanced? What's Beyond Ultimate? The way diminishing returns works, you already had some who would say, "look, I don't need an Ultimate Equipment Guide, I've got plenty of equipment." The market becomes really small for something like "Super Ultimate Equipment Guide". That's diminishing returns.

Take a look at this incredible poll results page. It's a poll run on Chris Perkins' awesome The Dungeon Master Experience series. He asked readers (primarily DMs) which books they liked. We can see clear diminishing sales. The DMG has 3.8% that don't express an opinion or don't own it. The DMG 2, 17%. Monster Manual 1: 5.6%, 2: 15.7%, 3: 19.3%, MV: 31.9%, MV:NV: 44.6%. The results are the same for any line of books, including ones that are drastically better toward the end (as with Monster Vault: Nentir Vale).



ShinHakkaider said:


> Name or quote and in what context please. Otherwise this just seems like a random swipe at Paizo and their staff.



I can't, because they are a friend.


----------



## Alphastream

Balesir said:


> That's true that you can find them - but I wouldn't call them cheap, at least not here in the UK. Plus - since some of the proposed moves I list are actually being developed by WotC now - there are the "Premium" versions available (with errata included).



Okay, sure, shipping makes everything in Europe more expensive. In the US, book re-sellers have tons of that late 3E content for cheap.

Your comment about reprints is a good one. It's one I wrestle with often. I have trouble believing the reprints, as beautiful as they are, will sell very well. They are releasing material compatible for 3E, such as Encounters, but is that really going to do much for sales? Though I travel a lot, I have met only a very small number of gamers that play 3E over Pathfinder. Maybe WotC can pull a few from PF back to 3E with reprints... but I really can't see that being significant. I don't really understand the reprint strategy for the 3E material. (I do for older classic stuff, as that is generally harder to find for most gamers and has a 'classic' and collectible value for many).



Balesir said:


> A different business plan would have required a different set of expectations and assumptions, naturally.



Okay, but keep in mind we're talking about what to do in the future. Wizards should learn from the problems of the OGL and either not create one or create a different type of OGL for D&D Next. They have a responsibility for their business, so the OGL should be re-examined carefully. 



Balesir said:


> That depends what you mean by "did well". The Core-Splats-New Edition model is a short-term bubble model; it has booms (and busts). But there are several companies that have been doing OK - keeping a product line going in a low-key way with decent (but not stellar) sales, enough to keep the business going for year after year. Pelgrane Press started in 1999 and have a very nice stable of systems and some established writers associated with them. Atlas Games have been around since at least 2004 and have a nice portfolio. Steve Jackson Games still has GURPS and a range around that. Columbia Games have been publishing Hârn Materials solidly since 1983; sure, they are not a market leader (nor likely to become one), but longevity has to count for something in a single brand, surely? Solid, long term quality with open products (GURPS can be used for many genres/settings, Hârn can be used with many game systems) and a committment to the customers is not a "sexy" way to do business - but it's one that lasts and it's one I am increasingly enamoured by as a customer.



I don't think any of those are a valid model for DnD. Sure, DnD could be just a small game with a single edition and the WotC just writes different games, as Pelgrane does. Or maybe it just lives off of other games, the way Steve Jackson does with Munchkin. 

It may be that this is the only way. Diminishing returns and editions is a pain. For most companies, it doesn't work in the long run, because they start by borrowing to write a core book, then get most of that back but need to put it into sourcebooks to maintain interest, and then lose their shirts when costs are the same but revenue is lower from diminishing returns. Both Paizo and WotC are clearly expanding into board games and licensing. The PF MMO is clearly an attempt to completely change the scale of Paizo and its branding influence. The emphasis at WotC with D&D Next on defining monsters and settings is clearly a gateway to licensing and branding. And really, if I worked for Hasbro, that's the only story I would believe. I wouldn't believe that Next is somehow going to be amazingly profitable (any more than I would believe Pathfinder Second Edition would be). I would believe that we could get back to the 80's and have a cartoon, toys, movies, lunchboxes, more successes like the Neverwinter MMO, etc. 

Back to the RPG, it still doesn't benefit from an OGL in either case. The OGL's benefits were supposed to be core book sales. No one has wanted to gut the RPG department down to just reselling the core books, thankfully. That initial vision would have been disastrous. Beyond that, the OGL creates competition, waters down your product line, creates product confusion, and hurts the industry by overly focusing on a single game rather than having third parties create their own innovations.



Balesir said:


> It's funny that the design team trumpeted that they started on the DDN process by going back and playing old editions of D&D; with or without OGL supplements, I wonder?



Without. They were playing through the key product lines. Short sessions to capture the essence of each edition - it's play style and what resonated. Plenty on the staff have d20 3rd party experience - that's not lacking. Similarly, they play different games all the time. Follow their Twitter feeds and see they have played L5R, FIASCO, Dungeon World, Numenera, FATE, 13th Age, etc. They are part of a vibrant community of gamers and they run and take turns in home games with various larger groups. They have a very healthy exposure to games these days.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Alphastream said:


> I don't know how the volume will compare over time, but Paizo publishes at a healthy clip. We've had Adventure Paths based on desert, ice, sea, pirates, undead, Asian nations... I'm sure I'm forgetting a few tropes, but at some point we've hit most people's preferences.




And now we're starting to see the not so typical tropes in the AP's which I dont think should be included in the talk about diminishing returns as they are not rule books but adventures. As long as there is an idea for adventures it's fresh product. For all that you might as well call movies and TV shows and Fiction books diminishing returns as well. 



Alphastream said:


> We've had obvious and non-obvious new classes. We've gone beyond the core mythological creatures and into the weird. We've published books with names like "Ultimate" and "Advanced". It's very similar to Complete Arcane and Complete Mage, or Player's Handbook II. What's beyond Advanced? What's Beyond Ultimate?




And what are they supposed to call this books? Player's Handbook II, Dungeon Masters Guide II? I think the obviousness in WOTC trying to streeeeeeetch things during the 3x era was pretty in our face. Did we really need a Complete Arcane AND Complete Mage? No. But Ultimate Magic is a pretty definitive book for Arcane spell casters as Ultimate Combat is the same for martial characters. I'd like to think that there is nothing beyond Ultimate other than II or a III at the end of the title. 



Alphastream said:


> The way diminishing returns works, you already had some who would say, "look, I don't need an Ultimate Equipment Guide, I've got plenty of equipment." The market becomes really small for something like "Super Ultimate Equipment Guide". That's diminishing returns.




The fact that you said that about Ultimate Equipment Guide shows that youre not exactly sure what that product is. Is there new material in the book? Sure. I dont think people will by a book with nothing but older material in it . But for the most part it's filled with mundane stuff, magical stuff that was spread out over several other Pathfinder books that not everyone owns. Stuff from AP's, stuff from Modules, Player's Companions etc. All in one book. So now youre not trying to remember where that one odd magic item came from. Because it's in the Ultimate Equipment Guide. 



Alphastream said:


> Take a look at this incredible poll results page. It's a poll run on Chris Perkins' awesome The Dungeon Master Experience series. He asked readers (primarily DMs) which books they liked. We can see clear diminishing sales. The DMG has 3.8% that don't express an opinion or don't own it. The DMG 2, 17%. Monster Manual 1: 5.6%, 2: 15.7%, 3: 19.3%, MV: 31.9%, MV:NV: 44.6%. The results are the same for any line of books, including ones that are drastically better toward the end (as with Monster Vault: Nentir Vale).




I'm not going to do that because this seems to be very WOTC specific (people polled are obviously 4E players and GM's) as it's from WOTC for WOTC materials. That coupled with the fact that you are a WOTC proponent wont allow me to look at whatever information that is there without bias. Sorry. 




Alphastream said:


> I can't, because they are a friend.



 I understand completely and totally respect that.


----------



## darjr

Alphastream said:


> With 4E there has been a wealth of content, both official and unofficial. While the unofficial material has mostly been fan-generated, it has at times been incredibly useful and influential. I've met tons of DMs that transformed their campaigns or adventures based on free material online, all while still buying official content. The best example of this may be Fourthcore, significant enough to be called a 'movement' by many. While what it brought forth wasn't always for everyone, it influenced most 4E gamers in some way.




Around here I'm the only one who's heard of it, and I've never even been to their site, I don't recall.

Edit to add that around here physically, in my local gaming area, not at ENWorld.


----------



## darjr

Alphastream, I don't find your argument that the OGL is bad for innovation convincing. Arguably one of the most successful rpg's out right now is OGL and look what we have.

FATE is hugely successful and is also OGL. 13th Age is OGL and a huge success. Numenera is hugely successful, but not OGL. The new Star Wars game is VERY different from d20 and is a huge success. Dungeon World is certainly successful and very much not d20, in fact in many ways I think it competes directly with d20 D&D like games. I think diversity in gaming and the hobby is doing just fine.


----------



## Gundark

Alphastream said:


> Every responsible company has business plans. Every company should want profit and most should want to grow. Customers should want companies in their hobby to grow. I wish upon every RPG company plenty of growth and profit, because that grows our hobby. But, the RPG model has so far shown that after a while we see stagnation. Every RPG wrestles with the problem that each successive book will see declining interest. Out of 1,000 gamers, 500 might like the core book. Only 200 might care for the DM book. Of those 200, only 160 might like the book on undead. And only 100 might like the book on a forest setting. RPG companies wrestle with that, because it is a cycle that kills business. With 3E, that cycle had fully played out. And the customer base was already seeing Wizards as having pressed too far with 3.5 on top of 3.0. Only an outside competitor could, under the very true auspices of "you don't have to leave 3E", update the rules and republish everything. That was key. Now it wasn't evil WotC republishing our game for money-grubbing reasons, it was Paizo swooping in to republish our game so we could keep playing the edition.




BOOM!..Headshot!


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Alphastream said:


> The idea behind not having an OGL isn't to make life for gamers worse. It is simply that, look, life was just fine without one,




See this is the part of the argument that I have huge problems with and it's one that I'm afraid that I cant get past and is and will continue to be a HUGE sticking point. YOU got along just fine without one. I did as well. Although I was patching and creating content for my own games when there was stuff that I wanted to add. 
I have no interest in spending that much time patching and creating material for RPG's. And am perfectly fine with having other designers and developers doing that. Especially if the designers and developers of the system of origin cant be bothered. 

A smaller unit (as in a 3rd party company) can get rolling on an idea quicker than a company like WOTC or maybe even Paizo. They can zig and zag where WOTC will have to slow down to stop then turn around. 



Alphastream said:


> the benefits of one are minor,



Again, TO YOU. To me the benfits are GREAT. 



Alphastream said:


> and the downsides to the company and even the hobby are considerable.




I'm still failing to understand why the OGL is bad for the hobby. Your entire argument seems to hinge on brand loyalty. If I'm not loyal to the brand that youre loyal to then I'm not going to agree with you or really care. Which is the case here. 

I think that as long as people are creating SOMETHING it's valid. Youre  basically saying that if theyre not creating something relevant to YOU it's not valid for the hobby. This is something that I pretty obviously disagree with. Mutants and Masterminds is OGL and it's as valid as hell. I have three Editions of this game. It's a great game and it's OGL. 

Trailblazer is OGL and was an excellent breakdown of the the 3x system that offered ways to "fix" and "balance" the system and otherwise do things to alter your 3x gaming experience. 

Youre basically saying that these things are BAD because they dont directly support the brand that you support. I disagree. VEHEMENTLY. 



Alphastream said:


> Those downsides to the hobby include having third parties overly focused on a single game, rather than out creating their own cool RPGs or system neutral material.




So again. You dont want them making things for the game that I want to play. You want them making new things that I may or may not like or even worse things that I'm going to have a difficult time finding players for as opposed to my game of preference. 



Alphastream said:


> With Paizo, for example, the number of monsters is staggering. It's really okay for third parties to stop making new monsters and create system neutral material with how we could use existing monsters in better ways, or just go create their own games.




 Again, YOU:  Stop supporting thier game of choice and do something else.



Alphastream said:


> That's how we end up with Dungeon World and 13th Age and other innovations instead of a "d20 complete guide to (insert name of obscure monster here)".




 Dungeon World is actually a game I'm interested in playing in but it's pretty much not going to pull me away from Pathfinder. I have NO interest in 13th Age as it seems that it might have too much 4E baggage. And I have no interest in playing or running anything close to 4E again. 



ShinHakkaider said:


> Accept or play an edition that I dont like because why again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, generally, it takes gamers a while to like a new edition. It took me a while to like 3E. When I had played enough 3E to burn out, I was still resistant to what I saw in 4E. But, I gave it a try and started to see why it was a very fun and excellent edition. Previous to the OGL, 99% of gamers would stick with a new edition and try it out, learning its positive qualities and usually getting hooked. We saw with 4E plenty of gamers call it an MMO and refuse to even try it. They could do that in part because the OGL enabled competitors to keep adding new material to an old edition - a massive sea change for DnD. Facilitating ways for your customer base to stay on an old edition is brutal in an industry where you have to launch new editions to have a chance to be profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D00d really? I mean REALLY? Do you hear yourself? You essentially want to FORCE people into playing a new edition of YOUR preferred game whether they want to or not? Saying that they didnt give it a real chance? When did you become the arbiter of how much of a chance gamers should give a game?
> 
> I gave it a chance. I bought the 4E gift set even though I had my misgivings about the system. I ran games for it. I played in a playtest session here in NYC prior to the games release.  I created encounters and tried to convert a few levels of B2 (which is my go to conversion for any new edition) and run players through that. And it didnt work for me. I DIDNT LIKE THE GAME. It wasnt fun for me. It's not a bad game. It just wasnt for me. But according to you I was supposed to keep playing until I liked it? Are you being serious with this? I play these games FOR FUN. If it's not fun then why on God's green earth am I doing it?
> 
> I have real issues with your line of thinking on this. This whole support the brand of my preference unilaterally because any other way hurts the hobby? My thing is PLAY WHAT YOU ENJOY. Not PLAY WHAT ALPHASTREAM thinks you should. Wow D00d...
> 
> And please stop trying to insinuate that just because people dont like a new edition that they are resistant to change. That's just as VILE and inaccurate as when people say that 4E is an MMO. It's a form of shaming people and it's just wrong man. If I were resistant to change would I seriously be branching out into boardgames? or 4E based board games like Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashraldolon and Legend of Drzzt? All of which I own? Would I picked up M&M 3rd Edition or the PDF of Dungeon World? I dont care for story games so that's not my thing but I actually wouldnt mind playing in a game of Fiasco. But I'm not a 4E fan so that makes me close minded and resisitant to change? Please Stop.
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of that, you really should give organized play another chance. It has changed a lot on the Wizards side. Events like Vault of the Dracolich and Candlekeep have brought some of the best of organized play excitement without the "old grognard network" or other issues that hurt living campaigns. It's good fun DnD. (I'm a co-author for both of the ones I mentioned, so I'm biased, but I also think the upcoming Legacy of the Crystal Shard launch event is a really fun introductory gameday adventure).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> D00d, if I'm avoiding Paizo Organized Play like the plauge? Paizo, a company who's game I enjoy and support? Why, for the love of all that is holy, would I want to play in a WOTC OP? WOTC, who produces a game that absolutely DO NOT enjoy or support?
> 
> Even if I loved the hell out of 4E? (and again, I DON'T) I wouldnt do OP. I CAN'T STAND IT. I'm sure that there are cool people who play but most of the type of person who play in OP are the type of players that I dont really want to be around, run games for or play with. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully I've made myself clearer. The OGL is actually what creates limits!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I really dont buy this.
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> - If the OGL isn't good for a company, then they shouldn't have one. They have a necessity to be profitable, and we should want that for them because it is good for the hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the first. Because you cant begrudge a company operating in it's own best interest. However if a company doenst have a OGL it makes me seriously think twice about purchasing it or supporting it.
> What's good for the hobby is the ability for me to play and run games that I enjoy playing and running. If a company isnt helping me do that? Then I DONT CARE about what's good for that company.
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> - If the OGL encourages third parties to churn out content (especially poor content) for a single game, then the OGL is hurting the game by creating a glut of content and lowering the overall quality of the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And when the OGL encourages the generation of really good and great content? THE OGL IS AWESOME.
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> - If the OGL prevents gamers from giving new editions a fair chance, then it is a problem for the company and even for gamers. Gamers should be open to new games and are usually better off trying many games rather than settling into a single game/edition for perpetuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OH MY GOD. The OGL DOES NOT PREVENT GAMERS FROM GIVING NEW EDITIONS A FAIR CHANCE. This is so wrong headed and self serving it's not even funny. You want to know how I know this is true?
> 
> Because everyone who is actually playing 4E and other games? ARE PLAYING 4E AND OTHER GAMES.
> 
> The OGL didnt stop them (and you I might add) from playing what you want to play.
> 
> Unlike what you are trying to do by pretty much flat out saying that if you dont play the newest version of the game that YOU prefer that that gamer is somehow being effected by the OGL! They are weak/close minded and therefore the OGL must go away. Only then will those errant gamers see the errors of thier ways!! What is this?!? The Borg collective?!? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> Alphastream said:
> 
> 
> 
> - If the OGL encourages multiple versions of DnD, that can create a hobby where the top games are DnD, DnD, DnD, etc. That isn't good for the hobby. It is a stronger game when companies are creating real challenges in the form of different games with real innovation. Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, Legend of the Five Rings, FIASCO, FATE, Numenera... those are different systems that truly innovate and grow the hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Youre touting the support of your game of choice and other games that have nothing to do with your game of choice. Basically you dont want D&D competing with itself? Despite the fact that people actually enjoy playing these older editions and OGL variants? Man that's just EVIL. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Balesir

Alphastream said:


> Your comment about reprints is a good one. It's one I wrestle with often. I have trouble believing the reprints, as beautiful as they are, will sell very well. They are releasing material compatible for 3E, such as Encounters, but is that really going to do much for sales? Though I travel a lot, I have met only a very small number of gamers that play 3E over Pathfinder. Maybe WotC can pull a few from PF back to 3E with reprints... but I really can't see that being significant. I don't really understand the reprint strategy for the 3E material. (I do for older classic stuff, as that is generally harder to find for most gamers and has a 'classic' and collectible value for many).



I think the 3E reprints are all about DDN. They are a _mea culpa_ - an apology to 3E fans for the "crush the heretic edition" approach they took last time (and 3E fans got the rough end of).

And I think it's effective, to a degree. There are some folk who will never forgive, but there certainly seem to be some who have been mollified enough to give DDN a look, at least.



Alphastream said:


> Okay, but keep in mind we're talking about what to do in the future. Wizards should learn from the problems of the OGL and either not create one or create a different type of OGL for D&D Next. They have a responsibility for their business, so the OGL should be re-examined carefully.



Could the OGL be sharpened to deal with a few (minor) issues not envisaged by its creators? Undoubtedly. But we were talking about market intelligence a little earlier; there is absolutely nothing like seeing how well an innovative product sells for market intelligence - even (especially?) if that product is produced by a competitor.

What business in general really needs to learn, in my opinion - and especially the games business, since they should understand game systems and processes better than anybody - is how to compete constructively. So many business folk see competition as a zero-sum game. The genius of the OGL was, in part, that it saw past that. If you can get 10% more share of the pie than the next guy that's swell - but if the pie is twice as big, _everybody_ gains! No one company can give the customers everything they want - so generate lots of companies to do it! Show all your competitors what you are doing (while keeping a tight hold on your _*branding*_) and you can all learn off each other what the customer wants.

Good grief, I have seen so often unproductive, blinkered and paranoid "competition" - I have even known companies (plural) who got so blinded by beating their competitors with certain customers that they were *making a loss* on their top-ranked clients!! The more they sold them, the more they lost - but they didn't even realise it and were too busy making sure they kept all that "premium" business to notice - it was insane. This was in the Chemical Industry, too, so you might even know some of the companies (I'm picking up that you are in Chemical Engineering - my first degree also - but that might be inaccurate).

They just need to wise up about ways they can compete that are constructive for the industry as a whole instead of destructive.



Alphastream said:


> I don't think any of those are a valid model for DnD. Sure, DnD could be just a small game with a single edition and the WotC just writes different games, as Pelgrane does. Or maybe it just lives off of other games, the way Steve Jackson does with Munchkin.



Think more in terms of a GURPS model - rules modules with settings and such besides. And different systems too, maybe, that cater to specific different tastes/styles.

What WotC would have, _with the OGL in place_, is the D&D brand. They can sell OGL material with the assurance of quality that the brand gives. Does that mean they have to be very careful to keep up brand quality and coherence? Yes!! That's exactly what I mean by "healthy for WotC"! Being incentivised to keep your brand quality high is absolutely healthy - it's the very essence of much of what I have been saying, in fact. There's a lot to be said for looking at brand value as brand quality times how well known the brand is. Marketing can do lots about the last part, but if the brand quality is crap (and you're not the only brand in town) it will all be for nought.



Alphastream said:


> Back to the RPG, it still doesn't benefit from an OGL in either case. The OGL's benefits were supposed to be core book sales. No one has wanted to gut the RPG department down to just reselling the core books, thankfully. That initial vision would have been disastrous. Beyond that, the OGL creates competition, waters down your product line, creates product confusion, and hurts the industry by overly focusing on a single game rather than having third parties create their own innovations.



The "core books only" idea was, frankly, dumb from the get-go. It's the opposite of the case above, almost: keeping 30% of the market value is worth squat if the market shrivels away to nothing. And if you sold only core books, it would - the 3pps would create their own systems if there was no synergy to plug into, I reckon. And with no synergy for your core books, the line would die.

On innovations: there will always be innovation in the marketplace. Plenty of indie games started up during the 3.x era, and towards the end there were plenty of non-D&D d20 games coming along, too. Having a core system to noodle around and expand upon makes it easier for new companies to get an entry to the market - and that's helpful to innovation in the long term.

At the moment we're seeing a flowering of new games through Kickstarter which is great but really doesn't have any connection to the OGL one way or the other. Having a route for new ventures to raise capital, without the risk of bank loans, from people who actually know the product is fantastic. For too long large areas of innovation have been limited because the people with the money didn't know or care about the markets these ventures want to serve. But that can happen with or without an OGL or equivalent.



Alphastream said:


> Plenty on the staff have d20 3rd party experience - that's not lacking. Similarly, they play different games all the time. Follow their Twitter feeds and see they have played L5R, FIASCO, Dungeon World, Numenera, FATE, 13th Age, etc. They are part of a vibrant community of gamers and they run and take turns in home games with various larger groups. They have a very healthy exposure to games these days.



"These days" that may well be true - but both managers and designers seemed to lack exposure in the past. Or maybe the limitations generated by the internal processes just made it seem that way? I dunno.


----------



## Morrus

I just assumed the reprints were there to fill the gap until DDN. I didn't think thee was much in a way of motive further than that, though capturing some old school players would be a nice bonus.


----------



## Alphastream

ShinHakkaider said:


> I'm not going to do that because this seems to be very WOTC specific (people polled are obviously 4E players and GM's) as it's from WOTC for WOTC materials. That coupled with the fact that you are a WOTC proponent wont allow me to look at whatever information that is there without bias. Sorry.




I'm sorry too. It's a real shame your bias towards one game prevents you from learning about the industry as a whole. 

I'll be clear: I'm not a fan of WotC. I'm a HUGE fan of WotC. But, I'm also a HUGE admirer of Paizo. They really rock. I can't be a bigger fan of Mona and Bulmahn - they are living legends and incredible gamers. SRM is such a great guy - guaranteed laughs and all the warmth in the world to match his incredible talent. And I'm a huge fan of what Catalyst is doing with Shadowrun and how they promote their team. I can't find enough ways to sing the praises of what Pelgrane is doing with 13th Age, and especially of what Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet did with that game, or how they ran the playtest process and evolved the game. Rob, with his incredible board and card games, pretty much walks on water in my book. I'm just an immense fan of 13th Age. I am a huge fan of how Evil Hat runs a business. I absolutely love what the Eclipse Phase / Transhuman guys do with their open model and Adam Jury is just incredible. I'm a huge fan of how Legend of the Five Rings works - an incredible blend of setting and RP in a combat system. I am such a fan of how FIASCO works as a framework for open gaming. I could go on. 

If you want to stay away from the games towards which I'm biased, you'll need to avoid reading about a lot of RPGs...

Seriously, diminishing returns isn't some fiction. It's obvious. Only a portion of an audience that likes a core book is going to like any successive sourcebook. Publishers know that, so they start with the stuff that has the most appeal. As they keep publishing, they get into narrower and narrower slices of the audience. This is a reality of the business. As was pointed out, you can stay shallow and just publish completely different games. But, if you want to publish an actual product line for an edition, diminishing returns is a harsh reality that really hurts the business and a prime reason why major RPGs launch new editions. It's why we have a fifth edition of Shadowrun, a fourth edition of Legend of the Five Rings, a third edition of Spycraft, several editions of Savage Worlds, several of Cthulhu, etc. (Yes, designers also like to perfect things, but diminishing returns is the business driver).


----------



## Alphastream

darjr said:


> Alphastream, I don't find your argument that the OGL is bad for innovation convincing. Arguably one of the most successful rpg's out right now is OGL and look what we have.
> 
> FATE is hugely successful and is also OGL. 13th Age is OGL and a huge success. Numenera is hugely successful, but not OGL. The new Star Wars game is VERY different from d20 and is a huge success. Dungeon World is certainly successful and very much not d20, in fact in many ways I think it competes directly with d20 D&D like games. I think diversity in gaming and the hobby is doing just fine.




When I'm arguing that the OGL is a problem, I'm saying that in the context of Wizards of the Coast, the upcoming D&D Next edition, and the 3E OGL language. 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm a huge fan of an OGL for most other companies. Smaller companies can greatly benefit from the marketing, community, and support created via an OGL. An OGL is an excellent idea for 13th Age and FATE (listen to Fred Hicks on podcasts - an OGL ties right into his strategy). I'm a huge fan of Eclipse Phase being completely open and even seeding its own torrents and creating "hack packs" so the community can hack up the product. Those are brilliant strategies for a smaller game. For all the reasons I've mentioned, I don't find the 3E OGL to be good for Wizards of the Coast. 

I also mentioned this earlier, but it is interesting to note that Monte Cook Games made some important changes to its OGL (as compared to the 3E OGL) to protect against the issues I've talked about. Monte has been a big fan of the OGL, but even MCG took steps to add in revenue sharing and an up-front cost to companies wanting to profit from the open license. Those are the kinds of changes I think Wizards should also be considering if they want to use an OGL.


----------



## DiasExMachina

A certain point of view...

http://www.livingdice.com/8489/an-ogl-of-dd-next/


----------



## Alphastream

ShinHakkaider said:


> Dungeon World is actually a game I'm interested in playing in but it's pretty much not going to pull me away from Pathfinder. I have NO interest in 13th Age as it seems that it might have too much 4E baggage. And I have no interest in playing or running anything close to 4E again.



Maybe that's why we're having trouble seeing eye-to-eye. I'm not trying to argue this as a fan of any particular gaming system, nor as something that should in any way change what you want to do. I most certainly don't want to change what game you play. The OGL isn't great for Wizards of the Coast. What game you, I, or the next gal likes doesn't change that. How the hobby works is far bigger than any individual's preference. It has to do with the entire publishing industry and the entirety of all gamer preferences.


----------



## Alphastream

Balesir said:


> What business in general really needs to learn, in my opinion - and especially the games business, since they should understand game systems and processes better than anybody - is how to compete constructively. So many business folk see competition as a zero-sum game. The genius of the OGL was, in part, that it saw past that. If you can get 10% more share of the pie than the next guy that's swell - but if the pie is twice as big, _everybody_ gains!



I think the gaming industry has actually been surprisingly good about this. Monte Cook mentioned how when he started at ICE the company was very clear that TSR was not the enemy. They knew it was a big enough industry and that DnD helped by bringing new players, some of whom would decide they wanted to find a different game and end up ICE's customers. It reminded me of what the CEO of WotC said in September: "We’re not in a share game; we never have been. I’ve been with Wizards of the Coast for five years and we’ve always talked about how our role is to build the hobby gaming industry. We’ve said that from the beginning; we stick by that now. I wish the best of luck to all hobby game manufacturers. All of them."



Balesir said:


> "These days" that may well be true - but both managers and designers seemed to lack exposure in the past.



I have the same feeling, though I really can't be sure. Gamers tend to like games and the TSR line often showed outside influences. A game like Alternity, for example, is ripe with borrowing from other systems, despite being at a time when many would have called TSR overly insular.

I did think of a way the OGL could help WotC with D&D Next. It could be an effective way of trying to eclipse the old OGL. If the industry rallied to a new OGL, they might feel less inclined to keep writing for an older OGL based off of 3E and shift to one based off of Next. Enough momentum and the industry might largely move focus to Next. I still don't see that as great for Wizards or the hobby (for all the previously stated reasons), but I could see it being a rationale WotC might use. If combined with at least some revenue sharing or a distribution platform similar to iTunes, it could be enough to make it a positive from the business side.


----------



## Alphastream

Morrus said:


> I just assumed the reprints were there to fill the gap until DDN. I didn't think thee was much in a way of motive further than that, though capturing some old school players would be a nice bonus.



It could be, though Greg Leads' comments certainly state that they plan on supporting both 4E and 3E with Next products long-term. I just doubt the sales of 2E and 3E reprints were very high. Maybe they were. 

I also recall a visit to a store where they had an incredibly confusing D&D shelf: 3E reprints, AD&D reprints, two 4E books, an Essentials DM Kit... it was about as incoherent a way to present a game to a casual/new player as one could imagine! The Paizo shelf above it was excellent: clear sets of books that communicated core material, starter set, and add-ons. I don't care about competition - the market is plenty big enough for both. It was just sad to know how confused a new gamer would be by that shelf. I don't think that shelf serves WotC well. Of course, it should improve drastically with Next.


----------



## Waller

DiasExMachina said:


> A certain point of view...
> 
> http://www.livingdice.com/8489/an-ogl-of-dd-next/




Dude, we're right here!

(I posted my reply to you on my blog)


----------



## Balesir

Alphastream said:


> I think the gaming industry has actually been surprisingly good about this. Monte Cook mentioned how when he started at ICE the company was very clear that TSR was not the enemy. They knew it was a big enough industry and that DnD helped by bringing new players, some of whom would decide they wanted to find a different game and end up ICE's customers. It reminded me of what the CEO of WotC said in September: "We’re not in a share game; we never have been. I’ve been with Wizards of the Coast for five years and we’ve always talked about how our role is to build the hobby gaming industry. We’ve said that from the beginning; we stick by that now. I wish the best of luck to all hobby game manufacturers. All of them."



As a general rule, possibly, but the tenor of the 4E launch didn't seem to encapsulate that in any way.

In a way it may be stranger still - WotC wishing all their competitors well except their historical selves! I think that's what seems to be missing; acknowledgement that past editions are competition like any other, and should be treated just the same.

Which brings up another point: WotC should be publishing adventures that are adapted for (or have conversion notes for on-line or wherever) 13th Age, Dungeon World and Pathfinder. The OGL works both ways!



Alphastream said:


> I did think of a way the OGL could help WotC with D&D Next. It could be an effective way of trying to eclipse the old OGL. If the industry rallied to a new OGL, they might feel less inclined to keep writing for an older OGL based off of 3E and shift to one based off of Next. Enough momentum and the industry might largely move focus to Next. I still don't see that as great for Wizards or the hobby (for all the previously stated reasons), but I could see it being a rationale WotC might use. If combined with at least some revenue sharing or a distribution platform similar to iTunes, it could be enough to make it a positive from the business side.



If 4E had been OGL then it might have attracted 3pp attention and diluted the Pathfinder focus? Sure - another reason OGL 4E would (IMO) have been good for WotC. And it still might have some effect for DDN, but WotC are already (needlessly) behind the game with OGL. We are already seeing the split between "the OGL companies" and WotC, and the former's lead is stretching all the time. Would that have been so had 4E been OGL? I don't think so. Sure, there would have been other OGL games and a competitive market - but WotC would have been part of it, not its _bête noir_.


----------



## Zireael

Morrus said:


> My worry is that no such license appears; in which case you've Kickstarted and taken money for something you can't legally provide.  It seems like it could risk upsetting people.  There's delivery dates of Feb 2014 on that Kickstarter.  ((Then again, I'm sure folks would be understanding and wait longer for the DDN stuff - most Kickstarters, including my own, don't meet the schedules).




That's a valid point. Is there any news on any sort of a license for 5e?


----------



## darjr

Two 3pp have come forward here and said that they have been told Next will be OGL. As in the 3.5 OGL. One of them has said that the CEO of WotC has already signed off on it. 

Nothing from WotC about any of it so far.


----------



## Tom Strickland

*Next Using the OGL Would be "Good" for the D&D Ecosystem*

Based upon what I know of the 3.x "prime" era, the 3rd party products  seemed to contain some level of admixture of new rules and content. I  personally have been satisfied with the crunchiness of the official and  also numerous other vendor products sharing the same core mechanics.  What fascinated me was a good setting or flavor of fantasy adventure,  role-playing, strategy and tactics. (This is based upon having  accumulated and reviewed hundreds of physical resources, and thousands  of digital resources.)

Consequently, I would publish one or more resources that tailored the  open rules into a cohesive, interesting, and unique enough play  experience within a familiar framework. (I have some excellent "King  Arthur", "Dying Earth" and other 3pp 3.x materials aside from the  official GH, DS, FRCS, etc., as examples of what I consider to be  appealing, and would therefore want to publish.)

A simple analogy is how it has been said that a campaign could be  tailored for "Swords and Sorcery" as with Conan the Barbarian. That  indicates what will happen regarding magic use by players and--in  contrast--denizens of that world. Some people enjoy that setting enough  to commit to it whereas others do not. The new rules, descriptive text,  tweaks, etc., would be popular enough to drive sales, or not.

This is my opinion, and I would plan to market to those who somewhat  share this opinion. Others would market major changes to the settings or  rules, including alternates or variants (e.g. magic). By the way, as a  gamer I was happy to continue to look for new resources in the same 3.5  system there at "the end", and make incremental changes. The requirement  to change has only ever been presented to me as an economic one for the  prime vendor (because tweaking the system as some players wanted didn't  necessarily require ending the existing line), and where that economic  decision intersects with an existing customer base is how much money,  time and effort will be required to retire or adapt perfectly good props  for something newer, better and shinier, all while being told that  being nostalgic is for dinosaurs.

The discussion about the licensing and control over a product line is  key to the economic realities of products and services. There are  proprietary and open source software models. They work. They have  rationales and approaches.

I am a firm advocate of protecting IP/content. If a WotC wants to  magnify its market share by providing a "standard" or "platform" where  others can make money, that is great. Consider the number of open and  proprietary software programs that run on Windows (operating systems),  and also sometimes compete with Microsoft products (software  applications)--MS commands so much market share for OS's primarily  because there is so much do there, beyond what they could ever  practically provide themselves. But also consider how MS got into the  console market because ostensibly they can better control 3rd party  product quality--but really, they get a share of every physical  cartridge.

If WotC wants a share of every 3pp product, there are analogous  examples, and some will take advantage of the situation, and there will  be some market for it. (like consoles or some smartphones)

If WotC wants to invite numerous vendors to make money on their own  content while running on a standard platform (and agreeing to certain  guidelines and respecting the rights of the provider), then that will  work too. (like 3rd party apps on Windows or other popular OS)

If they instead want to be their own internally participating ecosystem  of publishing because of their greater resources, then, of course, that  is already in play. (like a consumer device where changes are only  driven by the vendor)

So to me, it is really a question of what business and financial short  and long-term considerations will become pre-eminent to the  decision-makers for this 800 lb. gorilla in the role-playing market  space. 

I will transition, as a gamer, if there is something appealing about the  ease and consistency of this next edition, without changing the flavor  in a way I do not prefer (like emulating MMORGs). I will participate in  that market as a provider if there is a (friendly) standard and  contributors receive their due rewards for effective marketing of  quality products, while practicing good business. As has been said by  others in previous posts, it need not be a "zero sum game."


----------

