TheRPGSite

http://brucecordell.blogspot.com/2013/07/farewell-wizards-and-thank-you.html

QuoteTuesday, July 16, 2013
Farewell Wizards and Thank You
It's with mixed emotions that I announce the end of my 18-year run at Wizards (and TSR before that). I gave my notice last week and will be leaving the company.

This isn't an easy departure for me, both because of my long history with Wizards, and my recent good luck to be a member on the D&D Next design team. I'm thrilled to have been part of Next, and proud of what we accomplished: a kick-ass set of D&D rules. The team is on track to carry D&D Next to wide success.

Overall, my years at Wizards have allowed me to work alongside and learn from the most talented, creative, and innovative game designers, novel authors, and editors (professional editors, my friends, are worth their weight in platinum). Every project and novel was a chance for me to learn something new and hone my skills. Wizards granted me the opportunity to indulge myself telling stories, then gave me the ability to share those stories with the world.

Likewise, working at Wizards allowed me to develop fantastic relationships and enduring friendships. Everyone at Wizards is a superstar, both those presently employed and all those who've left before me. I hope that my future adventures will allow me to team up with many of them again for future forays into the dungeon.

But ultimately, every story ends so that new ones can begin. I'm looking forward to discovering what those stories will be.

Posted by Bruce R Cordell at 9:42 AM

We're doomed, I'm tellin' ya!

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

Huh. That's the second major departure from the D&D Next design team.

I actually do find that somewhat alarming.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;671502Huh. That's the second major departure from the D&D Next design team.

I actually do find that somewhat alarming.

In two years. That's not abnormal for a company.

Sure. But we aren't talking about the whole company. If we were talking about the whole company we'd be talking about a lot more than two people leaving over the past two years.

It might just be a question of pay cheques. Or else he's bored with the mediocrity of Next.

or he wants a real job with better money.

Or he wanted to beat the Christmas Rush...

I don't know why anyone would want to work for The Dread Pirate WoTC...

"Good night, Bruce. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill (Fire) you in the morning (Christmas)."

Quote from: One Horse Town;671518or he wants a real job with better money.

^ This. Unless Cordell or someone else actually spills the beans on the reason behind him leaving then there's really no basis for any sort of speculation as to why he left and what this means for Next.

Actually i was wrong, he doesn't want a proper job and instead has joined Monte Cook on Numenera.

Quote from: One Horse Town;671538Actually i was wrong, he doesn't want a proper job and instead has joined Monte Cook on Numenera.

I've seen a lot of people say that but there doesn't seem to be any public statement to that effect from Bruce or Monte.

So who is left in the D&D development group, besides Mike Mearls?

Quote from: One Horse Town;671538Actually i was wrong, he doesn't want a proper job and instead has joined Monte Cook on Numenera.

Doot-doo do doo doo!

Sorry, sorry, Pavlovian response...

How many others have also left? It's a bit early for the annual firing spree. Maybe there is a new manager and he's a jerk, so people are quitting.

Quote from: One Horse Town;671538Actually i was wrong, he doesn't want a proper job and instead has joined Monte Cook on Numenera.

This is very possible.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;671502Huh. That's the second major departure from the D&D Next design team.

I actually do find that somewhat alarming.

Why?  Do you know why he left?  Maybe he won the lottery.  Who the hell knows, and who cares.  It's hardly unusual in corporate America for people to leave for one reason or the other.

If he's making pennies in the RPG industry anyway, perhaps he would rather make pennies with one of his friends instead of a corporation?  Point is, unless he comes out and says "I do not have faith in Next", this sort of speculation is about as worth as much as tits on a bull.

Some people just get tired of working for ' the man' and seek employment that offers them more of a chance to do what they really enjoy.

It happens all the time. Dude wakes up one morning and decides he isn't enjoying the same old grind anymore. It can happen in any industry even rpg design.

Well, mystery solved, I guess.  Judging by the commentary here (http://www.stannex.com/?p=2063), it looks like Monte and Bruce had to leave WotC if they had their own projects and didn't want WoTC to have rights to it.  Monte had Numenara.

Which makes sense.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671601Well, mystery solved, I guess.  Judging by the commentary here (http://www.stannex.com/?p=2063), it looks like Monte and Bruce had to leave WotC if they had their own projects and didn't want WoTC to have rights to it.  Monte had Numenara.

Which makes sense.

WOW... that is a retarded logic.

Quote from: Benoist;671605WOW... that is a retarded logic.

It's very common that any work created while on the job, or using workplace materials (computers, etc), is owned by the company.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671607It's very common that any work created while on the job, or using workplace materials (computers, etc), is owned by the company.

Yes but that's not just it. ANYTHING creative you do is ipso facto owned by the company. You can use your own computer, never use the company's pencil sharpener or photocopier... anything creative coming out of your brain is owned by the company. Period. You can't do freelance on the side, you can't have an imprint at your own name for side projects, nothing.

This is retarded. As mentioned in Stan!'s post, companies like Blizzard don't do this.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671607It's very common that any work created while on the job, or using workplace materials (computers, etc), is owned by the company.

It goes beyond that. The contract seems to state that any creative project worked on even at home using personal computers while under contract at the company becomes the property of the company.

No wonder anything coming out of Wizards feels like groupthink, honestly. That's because it is: if you basically can't do anything field related outside the company, all your creative juices just mingle with the other employees' and that's that. It ends up in a circle jerk, sooner or later.

Quote from: Benoist;671611No wonder anything coming out of Wizards feels like groupthink, honestly. That's because it is: if you basically can't do anything field related outside the company, all your creative juices just mingle with the other employees' and that's that. It ends up in a circle jerk, sooner or later.

Ayup. Welcome to the world of design by committee. It is usually mediocre and flavorless.

I'm not saying it's not colossally stupid.  I'm just saying that explains why Monte and Bruce would leave, and not "this is a sign Next is shit!"

Quote from: Benoist;671608Yes but that's not just it. ANYTHING creative you do is ipso facto owned by the company. You can use your own computer, never use the company's pencil sharpener or photocopier... anything creative coming out of your brain is owned by the company. Period. You can't do freelance on the side, you can't have an imprint at your own name for side projects, nothing.

This is retarded. As mentioned in Stan!'s post, companies like Blizzard don't do this.

But a lot of others do. I can see their reasoning in some cases. If someone has a full time job at a company, but they have time to produce a number of outside works, it makes you wonder if they are really putting all their efforts in making their employer's products successful. It also closes a possible problem with creations that are actually created at work walking out the door because the employee claims that they created it in their off time.

I suspect employers use these too because terms of NDAs and non-competitive clauses in employment contracts get tossed out frequently.

Big game companies view their projects much the same way as big tech companies. They have some ideas they think are brilliant. They try to protect them. I had to sign an NDA at a 'con recently for a "Design" session - for me, what was discussed made me feel like the NDA was an absurdity, because what has discussed wasn't very valuable to me. But what it was, was definitely gold to company.

While I think its all unfortunate (and while I protect my own IP, I wouldn't pull this crap), the best designers are going to go out, start their own businesses and land on their feet. When I went to PaizoCon earlier this month, I saw and playtested plenty of great third party stuff, like Primeval Thule (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/809579963/primeval-thule) - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/809579963/primeval-thule also made by ex-WotC'ers. These guys may be suffering a bit having to provide their own health insurance but Id rather see them raising the bar on third party quality.

I'd not put my money on Blizzard not doing that. There are probably reasons why those Hellgate guys left Blizzard rather than release that game under said company's banner. It started with Edison and it'll continue, because it's good money.

Quote from: Benoist;671608Yes but that's not just it. ANYTHING creative you do is ipso facto owned by the company. You can use your own computer, never use the company's pencil sharpener or photocopier... anything creative coming out of your brain is owned by the company. Period. You can't do freelance on the side, you can't have an imprint at your own name for side projects, nothing.

This is retarded. As mentioned in Stan!'s post, companies like Blizzard don't do this.

That is standard for WotC, though. Long ago I was considering writing for Dragon, then I read their Writer's Guidelines. There was a clause in them that states that any submitted material, whether published or not, becomes the intellectual property of WotC to be used however they wish in whatever medium they wish that exists or will exist in the future. If I got a new monster published by them and they decided to create a show in the newly invented smellovision 25 years from now and it makes millions, I'd get nothing because it has been declared WotC intellectual property.

That is corporate America.

Quote from: Benoist;671608Yes but that's not just it. ANYTHING creative you do is ipso facto owned by the company. You can use your own computer, never use the company's pencil sharpener or photocopier... anything creative coming out of your brain is owned by the company. Period. You can't do freelance on the side, you can't have an imprint at your own name for side projects, nothing.

This is retarded. As mentioned in Stan!'s post, companies like Blizzard don't do this.

It's pretty much standard in any company that even vaguely creates anything - I've got a similar clause in my contract, which gives my employers first refusal on anything, iirc (I'm not going to fetch my contract for this discussion).

I'd be bloody surprised if Blizzard really don't have this clause in their employment contracts.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671609It goes beyond that. The contract seems to state that any creative project worked on even at home using personal computers while under contract at the company becomes the property of the company.

That's
BULLSHIT!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671615I'm not saying it's not colossally stupid.  I'm just saying that explains why Monte and Bruce would leave, and not "this is a sign Next is shit!"

It depends on whether you think design by committee is shit by definition.

JG

Yeah it's pretty common. when I wrote for a small comicbook under Image comics, I was working at Microsoft at the time - and my supervisor found out that I did this on the side, and I got dragged up before management to determine if Microsoft had any interests in my work, and if it was a conflict, AND more importantly if this was something I started while working for them.

Fortunately - I'd already had this going before hand.

I ran into the same bit when I wrote for Dragon - (did some stuff with Mearls ironically) and yeah the ownership clause kinda stuck in my craw too. Sure enough - they reprinted my stuff in Best of Dragon - I didn't get a check or anything (they did send me a free copy of the book... ah well!).

These things are pretty common - it's just a matter of how dickish they want to be about it and how much are you willing to put up with it. Looks like Bruce made his call.

Only on the Internet would a no-moonlighting clause be considered outrageous.

Quote from: Mistwell;671675Only on the Internet would a no-moonlighting clause be considered outrageous.

It isn't outrageous but it does motivate the best talent to seek greener pastures.

Quote from: Mistwell;671675Only on the Internet would a no-moonlighting clause be considered outrageous.

Just because it's not unheard of doesn't mean it's not outrageous.

JG

Have people seriously never heard of noncompete clauses?

They are kind of common. You can't release something in the same field as your employer because you are obligated by your contract not to compete with them. This is kind of a thing in most fields.

Yeah, noncompetition clauses are the law of the land here in the states. I think they're stupid, but they're cheaper than deciding if your star designer's are sniping at your IP on the side.

But IP laws are their own barrel of laughs.

In all fairness though, I can see a reason for them.  For example, let's say Monte and Bruce are on the Next team, and know exactly what's going to be in it a year before anyone else.  So they take the best parts, file off the serial numbers a bit, and release their own stuff first.

I can see while WoTC would take the position of, "You are an employee of us and have access to sensitive information, so therefore you cannot work on a competing project at the same time."

I worked for a company here as an IBM systems guy then later as a LAN guy and both departments had pretty strict no-compete clauses.  Anything I developed as far as financial aid software, EFT software or the like was theirs, period.  And I understand why, too: the systems and software I'd have had access to to test those are simply unavailable to the common person (or they were in 1996).  A full blown IBM-MVS testing environment running CA/7, JCL, etc. etc. doesn't simply grow on trees.

To build a new piece of software for an environment like that would require using that environment either at the office or dialed in from home.  

I didn't find it intrusive or offensive.

I'm not saying it's "offensive" in a liberal sense, personally.

If you agree with the contract then that's that. You signed that contract, it's on you. If you are cool with it, then cool.

I'm saying that's a shitty environment to work in creatively, from my POV, that it only spawns sub-par, mediocre, group think work on the long term.

I worked in an engineering company. Everyone had a clause when hired that anything engineering related they did while at home was IP to the company. Pretty much every engineering firm does this.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;671502Huh. That's the second major departure from the D&D Next design team.

I actually do find that somewhat alarming.

Agreed.  Even if it is for reasons completely unrelated to the design of the game, it isn't ideal for the team to churn too much given how tightly designed next needs to be.  It's going head to head with Pathfinder, and while bloat will be against Paizo this time that won't help if the design of next isn't compelling.

Quote from: Votan;671811Agreed.  Even if it is for reasons completely unrelated to the design of the game, it isn't ideal for the team to churn too much given how tightly designed next needs to be.  It's going head to head with Pathfinder, and while bloat will be against Paizo this time that won't help if the design of next isn't compelling.

By most accounts, Next is 95% of the way done.  So Bruce leaving now isn't going to have that much of an impact one way or the other, unless you think he'll provide some major 11th hour breakthrough.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671813By most accounts, Next is 95% of the way done.  So Bruce leaving now isn't going to have that much of an impact one way or the other, unless you think he'll provide some major 11th hour breakthrough.

I think the main risk is a replacement who decides to tinker with the rules in the final phases or poor communication about the context for decisions.  

I am not saying that it won't work out fine, just that it isn't an optimal situation.

If he thought that 5e was going to be all kinds of awesome and wildly successful, and make all kinds of money, then he would have stayed on. Period.

He knows it's going to mediocre. Better not to be in the ship and have to answer for its failure.

Would you leave a sure bet with the biggest name in the industry to work on some pissant project?

Quote from: 1989;671917If he thought that 5e was going to be all kinds of awesome and wildly successful, and make all kinds of money, then he would have stayed on. Period.

Not true.  Do you think he's going to get a bonus depending on sales or something?  I doubt that.  Like we said, it's most likely because he doesn't want WoTC to take control of his personal projects and doesn't want them taking the profit from his own creation.

He certainly should have gotten a bonus for a job well done.  He wasn't a freelancer.

As for the IP thing, it also keeps you from saving your best stuff for yourself.  Say you have a great idea that you think would really make the game rock, but the committee doesn't like it.  In a world where you can't print it yourself, you'd probably fight harder to get it in there.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671919Not true.  Do you think he's going to get a bonus depending on sales or something?  I doubt that.  Like we said, it's most likely because he doesn't want WoTC to take control of his personal projects and doesn't want them taking the profit from his own creation.

We can't know his reasons (he may have a better job opportunity or a personal matter to tend to). It is his business, but I do share some people's surprise over another departure (especially this close to the end of the design process). I think it is noteworthy.

Quote from: jeff37923;671639That is standard for WotC, though. Long ago I was considering writing for Dragon, then I read their Writer's Guidelines. There was a clause in them that states that any submitted material, whether published or not, becomes the intellectual property of WotC to be used however they wish in whatever medium they wish that exists or will exist in the future. If I got a new monster published by them and they decided to create a show in the newly invented smellovision 25 years from now and it makes millions, I'd get nothing because it has been declared WotC intellectual property.

I will not write for places like that. If I write for a US magazine, the only rights I'm willing to sell are first North America serial rights. I had a magazine that really wanted me to write something for them some years ago but demanded all rights for the going rate for first North America serial rights. The editor got very annoyed when I would not allow their corporate policy of buying all right to override my policy of not selling all rights. :rolleyes:

Well. The suspense is over: http://brucecordell.blogspot.ca/2013/08/bruce-r-cordell-is-joining-monte-cook.html

Quote from: Benoist;682053Well. The suspense is over: http://brucecordell.blogspot.ca/2013/08/bruce-r-cordell-is-joining-monte-cook.html

So, in other words, pretty much what everybody expected.

Quote from: Novastar;682089So, in other words, pretty much what everybody expected.

Absolutely. No surprise there at all.

Monte Cook Games, it will be cool if it becomes a serious contender to Paizo and WotC.  It will be even cooler if they decide to publish role-playing games.

Quote from: Benoist;682109Absolutely. No surprise there at all.

It's like when you're stuck at the shitty, cheapskate, head-up-ass, thinking-by-committee corporation and you notice that all of your co-workers are leaving and they're all ending up at the same competitor.

JG

You know, in the area of RPGs, WotC has made a habit of creating their own market competition and giving them a head start by alienating their customers in the process.

Quote from: jeff37923;682523You know, in the area of RPGs, WotC has made a habit of creating their own market competition and giving them a head start by alienating their customers in the process.

Capitalism, working as intended.

JG

Quote from: CRKrueger;682135Monte Cook Games, it will be cool if it becomes a serious contender to Paizo and WotC.  It will be even cooler if they decide to publish role-playing games.

I think I see what you did there...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;671738I worked for a company here as an IBM systems guy then later as a LAN guy and both departments had pretty strict no-compete clauses.  Anything I developed as far as financial aid software, EFT software or the like was theirs, period.  And I understand why, too: the systems and software I'd have had access to to test those are simply unavailable to the common person (or they were in 1996).  A full blown IBM-MVS testing environment running CA/7, JCL, etc. etc. doesn't simply grow on trees.

To build a new piece of software for an environment like that would require using that environment either at the office or dialed in from home.  

I didn't find it intrusive or offensive.

Except that Wizard's policy would be better described as follows: if you decide to write a poem about how pretty the butterflies outside your window are, the software company you work for owns the rights to your poem. Wizards' terms were that ANY creative output people produced, RPG related or not, became their property.

Edit:
Just to provide a bit more context, from http://www.stannex.com/?p=2054

QuoteWhen two V.P.s come to an impasse, the only way to resolve it is to go to the CEO. And I am given to understand that this is exactly what happened. Three members of upperest of upper management spent some amount of time discussing whether or not it was okay for me to retain the rights to cartoons and write children’s books that I create in my spare time, and the answer turned out to be “no.”

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671609It goes beyond that. The contract seems to state that any creative project worked on even at home using personal computers while under contract at the company becomes the property of the company.

Wasn't that the reasoning why TSR was able to go after Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys, a game that couldn't possibly be seen as a copy/re-engineering/clone of AD&D?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;682901Wasn't that the reasoning why TSR was able to go after Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys, a game that couldn't possibly be seen as a copy/re-engineering/clone of AD&D?

They went after DJ because it had Gary's name on it - they tried to force him to sign a piece of paper stating he wouldn't put his own name on any future RPG products he worked on because it would infringe on TSR IP.

He didn't sign it.

Quote from: jeff37923;682523You know, in the area of RPGs, WotC has made a habit of creating their own market competition and giving them a head start by alienating their customers in the process.

They are not unique in this regard. It happens all the time.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;682918Gary's name (...) would infringe on TSR IP.

Wow. That's even more ridiculous...

Quote from: Lynn;682974They are not unique in this regard. It happens all the time.

They've done a lot of screwed up stuff but they're not as bad as GW.

Nobody is as awful as GW except for perhaps late mid-90s TSR.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;683157They've done a lot of screwed up stuff but they're not as bad as GW.

Nobody is as awful as GW except for perhaps late mid-90s TSR.

GW will send actual Space Marines to your house to give you a kicking if you forget to include the trademark symbol whenever you say Space Marine.

And late TSR was fabulously crooked.

Ah yes, the infamous Space Marine (TM).

I feel nicely liberated by GW selling their licences and sticking to the games I don't really play that much any longer. I can ride their ugly arses all they deserve.

Quote from: jeff37923;682523You know, in the area of RPGs, WotC has made a habit of creating their own market competition and giving them a head start by alienating their customers in the process.

WotC shot themselves in the foot with the OGL.

Releasing the OGL was an stupid move of nuclear proportions, and they are starting to feel the fall out.

If they hadn't made that idiotic move then pathfinder wouldn't be here and the osr  people would still be using out of print books.

4e would have been just another version of the 2nd edition disaster, and they could more or less recover with a decent follow up edition.

Quote from: Jaeger;683598WotC shot themselves in the foot with the OGL.

One could argue — and I will — that they shot themselves in the foot by releasing a game with only a tangential relationship to anything that had gone by the name D&D previously. (And making a number of shitty decisions in concert with that, like "everything is core" and Spellplague.)

One could also point out that they made a shit-ton of money off 3e D&D, in large part due to the OGL.

In any case, the OGL is responsible for allowing the current gaming renaissance to foster. What vitality there is in the hobby is mainly due to OGL-derived games. Even were it bad for WOTC, it was great for gaming.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683617One could also point out that they made a shit-ton of money off 3e D&D, in large part due to the OGL.

OGL was great for the good third party guys - totally arguable how/if that translated into official 3e sales though.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683617In any case, the OGL is responsible for allowing the current gaming renaissance to foster. What vitality there is in the hobby is mainly due to OGL-derived games. Even were it bad for WOTC, it was great for gaming.

And that's my point, if I were in charge of WotC I could give a fuck about gaming outside D&D.

WotC hurt themselves in the long run with the OGL , which has allowed competitors to come into existence that otherwise wouldn't, diluting the D&D brand.

Yes 4e was dumb, but fixable with a new edition.

OGL is never going away. Which is not good for WotC's bottom line long term.

Now I don't play D&D, so I could give a fuck what happens to WotC.

OGL was just an obviously bad pure business move from the start. You don't create your own competition by giving away your money making IP for free. So Stupid.

Personally I'm curious to see what pazio's response to 5e will be once it hits the market. Because with OGL hanging out there they could make a very close competitor again...

Quote from: JonWake;683276And late TSR was fabulously crooked.

Ah yes...late TSR.

"If you put something D&D up on CompuServ or Prodigy or GEnie, it belongs to US!"

Quote from: Jaeger;683634OGL was great for the good third party guys - totally arguable how/if that translated into official 3e sales though.

The presence of a wide variety of supplemental materials — modules, campaign settings, rules supplements — absolutely helped drive sales of D&D. WOTC themselves (and employees at the company) said so.

Supplements were instrumental in the sales of 3e, and it was the botched 3.5 transition that cratered the marketplace, which had negative consequences for WOTC. Then there was the botched transition from the OGL to that other license, and the shitty decisions made in making and marketing 4e.

To blame the OGL for all of the ill effects of a decade of bad decisions is a mistake, IMHO.

Quote from: Jaeger;683634WotC hurt themselves in the long run with the OGL , which has allowed competitors to come into existence that otherwise wouldn't, diluting the D&D brand.

Let's be clear here. According to my best understanding of the pertinent laws (IANAL), people could always "clone" D&D.

You can't copyright mechanics or systems. I could publish a clone of D&D, with the exact same mechanics (but all new text), and it'd be untouchable under US law.

In fact, D&D clones have always existed. Palladium was a D&D clone. Did the success of Palladium and Rifts destroy TSR... or was it TSR's own bad business decisions?

WOTC hurt themselves with many decisions, the OGL not among them.

The only thing WOTC can do to cloners is to sue.... and they'd be in the wrong, according to the law. The lawsuit would be devastating to the small-time person, but it'd be baseless. (Yes, baseless suits are effective, if reprehensible.)

What the OGL did (in effect) was to officially announce that WOTC wouldn't wrongfully sue anyone making a D&D clone, so long as you abided by it's restrictions. It was nice of them, but not legally necessary.

Now, how does a promise not to wrongfully sue someone constitute either brand dilution or brand suicide?

Quote from: Jaeger;683634And that's my point, if I were in charge of WotC I could give a fuck about gaming outside D&D.

"I don't care about how many people play RPG's. No matter how many do, my sales will always remain robust and growing."

Shortsighted, to say the least.

A healthy D&D is good for the hobby and industry. Conversely, a healthy hobby is good for D&D.

Quote from: Jaeger;683598WotC shot themselves in the foot with the OGL.

Releasing the OGL was an stupid move of nuclear proportions, and they are starting to feel the fall out.

If they hadn't made that idiotic move then pathfinder wouldn't be here and the osr  people would still be using out of print books.

4e would have been just another version of the 2nd edition disaster, and they could more or less recover with a decent follow up edition.

It remains to be seen that they can recover with D&D Next, and without the OGL, there would be no Paizo Pathfinder, which means the hobby's business as a whole would be even more in the tank than it is, since the previous flagship brand is no longer well-thought of and needs a serious rehabilitation, which would be even more crucial (and more chancy) if we didn't have Pathfinder as a counter-example.

JG

PS: How was AD&D 2nd Edition a bigger "disaster" than 4E?

Quote from: Jaeger;683598WotC shot themselves in the foot with the OGL.

WotC shot themselves in the foot by making third edition incompatible with what have came before. Everything since then has been chasing short term profits (sales spikes from making your existing customers buy the core books again by releasing a new incompatible edition) at the expense of longer term sales (by fracturing the the player base they reduce the potential market for future products).

Had WotC been prepared to treat D&D like a board game instead they would definitely be making more money per year from it now, and might even be ahead for the whole time they've owned it by now. And with a D&D basic set always in print, the hobby would have been better off too (they could even have done themed D&D sets they way they do for Monopoly and Risk - Simpsons D&D anyone?).

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;682901Wasn't that the reasoning why TSR was able to go after Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys, a game that couldn't possibly be seen as a copy/re-engineering/clone of AD&D?

I'd love to see a D&D movie about the actual creation of the game, and the legal battles that followed it's success. That's a far more interesting story.

Quote from: Grymbok;683770Had WotC been prepared to treat D&D like a board game instead they would definitely be making more money per year from it now, and might even be ahead for the whole time they've owned it by now. And with a D&D basic set always in print, the hobby would have been better off too (they could even have done themed D&D sets they way they do for Monopoly and Risk - Simpsons D&D anyone?).

Themed D&D basic sets seems to be a glaring omission. In a sane world second- and third-tier game companies wouldn't have the LOTR RPG licence, or even the Game of Thrones RPG licence - it'd be Wizards all the way baby, with the work of the designers mainly being to load the sets in question with cool subsystems and supplements to cover distinctive aspects of the IP in question (for instance, a noble house management system for the Game of Thrones RPG).

Quote from: Ladybird;683821I'd love to see a D&D movie about the actual creation of the game, and the legal battles that followed it's success. That's a far more interesting story.

The "Jobs" treatment - for "Gygax". Id like to see that too.

Quote from: Jaeger;683598WotC shot themselves in the foot with the OGL.

Releasing the OGL was an stupid move of nuclear proportions, and they are starting to feel the fall out.

If they hadn't made that idiotic move then pathfinder wouldn't be here and the osr  people would still be using out of print books.

The idiotic move was pulling the Dragon and Dungeon licenses from Paizo, which motivated them to make Pathfinder. That put Paizo into the position of either fold or do something new. I heard this directly from Lisa Stevens and Eric Mona at a Paizocon.

Yup.  WoTC's mistake wasn't the OGL; it was no longer using the OGL.  If they have any brains, they'll come back to it with 5e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683686What the OGL did (in effect) was to officially announce that WOTC wouldn't wrongfully sue anyone making a D&D clone, so long as you abided by it's restrictions. It was nice of them, but not legally necessary.

The OGL lets you republish the exact text of the game, not just recreate it's mechanics. That's a pretty big difference.

Quote from: hexgrid;684602The OGL lets you republish the exact text of the game, not just recreate it's mechanics. That's a pretty big difference.

More importantly I think, the D20 log is far more likely to make people think 'its for D&D' that putting 'compatible with the worlds most popular roleplaying game' in small type at the bottom of the back cover.

Quote from: jadrax;684606More importantly I think, the D20 log is far more likely to make people think 'its for D&D' that putting 'compatible with the worlds most popular roleplaying game' in small type at the bottom of the back cover.

True, but the D20 license was an entirely separate beast from the OGL. It had a lot more stringent requirements. (And, IIRC, the d20 License was permanently yanked during the transition to 4e. Hence the proliferation of replacement logos/licenses.)

Quote from: hexgrid;684602The OGL lets you republish the exact text of the game, not just recreate it's mechanics. That's a pretty big difference.

It is a difference, you're right. (Though, depending on the edition, would-be cloners would benefit from being forced to rewrite some of D&D's more abstruse passages.) But that difference isn't enough to turn the OGL into a brand-destroying juggernaut, especially considering the role of the d20 License and the explicit ban on mentioning compatibility with D&D.

I've never seen any evidence that the OGL (or even d20) licenses harmed the D&D brand. Quite the opposite.

I know several people got into 3e because the OGL/d20 piqued their interest. And, after the "we'll sue for hot-linking to our photos" policies of TSR, a fan-friendly approach went a long way towards salvaging the reputation of D&D. It enhanced the brand.

As a side note, I would argue that the most significant component of the OGL was WOTC adopting a legal obligation not to unjustly sue people. That's a big benefit for hobbyist publishers (as many of the d20 companies were in the beginning, such as Necromancer Games). It ensured that more than sccant handful of people were willing to publish d20 stuff (which wasn't a given, at least in the beginning).

The D&D brand was damaged by a host of bad decisions. The OGL (IMHO) wasn't one of them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;684578Yup.  WoTC's mistake wasn't the OGL; it was no longer using the OGL.  If they have any brains, they'll come back to it with 5e.

By OGL, I assume you mean third-party support. Explain to me how that helps WotC.

Pathfinder uses the OGL. There are companies which publish Pathfinder-compatible supplements. How much has this helped Pathfinder? As far as I can see, fuck all. A few very small publishers, with no reach beyond the hardcore forum-going hobbyist, produce shitty adventures and sourcebooks written and layed out by amateur outfits that last a year or two. How would this help D&D crawl out of the steamy quagmire of hardcore RPG enthusiasts? How does it grow the game with new players accustomed to professionally designed and produced games? How does have a bunch of vanity press books filled with artwork straight out of a 10th-graders binder doodling, with D&D Next stamped on the cover, really help WotC?

Pathfinder has shown that if you actually put the effort into making quality adventures and setting material yourself, you don't need third-party support for that content. And the RPG publishing industry is far weaker today than it was in 2002. I would expect even more third-party publishers to be fly-by-night hacks who go out of business in a year.

WotC is aiming to grow D&D outside the traditional (of the last 10 years anyway) RPG market. If it was content with simply publishing the most popular game in a small and sclerotic hobby, 4E would still be alive and well.

Let go of 2002 already. Forget about the halcyon days of the OGL. Forget about Ryan fucking Dancey and the geek fantasy of open-source RPGs. Frankly, it wasn't that great the first time around.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683686The presence of a wide variety of supplemental materials — modules, campaign settings, rules supplements — absolutely helped drive sales of D&D. WOTC themselves (and employees at the company) said so...

They exchanged short term extra $$$ for potential long term competition problems if they screwed the pooch on the next edition.

Which they promptly went and did...

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683686Let's be clear here. According to my best understanding of the pertinent laws (IANAL), people could always "clone" D&D.

You can't copyright mechanics or systems. I could publish a clone of D&D, with the exact same mechanics (but all new text), and it'd be untouchable under US law.
...

Technically true, but as a practical matter no one did it because nobody could survive the potential frivolous lawsuit.

And there's a big difference between some fantasy heartbreaker 'clone', and Exactly The Same Rules.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683686Now, how does a promise not to wrongfully sue someone constitute either brand dilution or brand suicide?

Now people don't have to got to WotC for the 'D&D experience'. Because pathfinder is basically exactly the same as their favorite "edition".

And Pazio is able to do it because the potential "unspoken threat" of a lawsuit is no longer hanging over every ones head.

Before people would just not buy the new edition and keep playing the old one, or just drop out of the hobby.

But this was fixable in the long run if they came out with a good new edition - as 3.x proved.

But now, because of OGL, they don't have to wait for the next "official D&D" edition fix, they now have support from a direct competitor who is putting out "new" product for their favorite "edition".

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683686WOTC hurt themselves with many decisions, the OGL not among them.

It was many different bad decisions that hurt them, the OGL was one of those, and the one that will have the farthest reaching consequences.

It's the mistake they can't take back or fix.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;683686A healthy D&D is good for the hobby and industry. Conversely, a healthy hobby is good for D&D.

Sales wise D&D basically was the hobby. But with the Pathfinder split due to a combination of the OGL, and the 4e disaster, "official" D&D now has a legit competitor.

Pazio had a lot of help from WotC when they lost their damn minds with 4e. But without the OGL already out there they would not be a legit competitor to D&D right now.

From a pure market perspective this kind of competition is great for the consumer and the hobby.

And all this is possible because WotC basically did a trust bust on themselves with the OGL.

Which was stupid of WotC.

But good for everyone else.


.

Quote from: Ladybird;683821I'd love to see a D&D movie about the actual creation of the game, and the legal battles that followed it's success. That's a far more interesting story.

I don't know why I suddenly think of Larry Hagman and Ken Kercheval... (and Joan Collins as Lorraine Williams?)

Quote from: Jaeger;684909They exchanged short term extra $$$ for potential long term competition problems if they screwed the pooch on the next edition.

The mistake wasn't embracing the OGL. The mistake was abandoning it.

The even bigger mistake was abandoning it in a particularly stupid way. They could have saved themselves massive headaches, for example, by extending Paizo's licenses to Dragon and Dungeon magazine.

Quote from: Haffrung;684822By OGL, I assume you mean third-party support. Explain to me how that helps WotC.

The same way it helps everyone else who embraces open movements: Wide and diverse support that increases the appeal of the core products to people who would otherwise not have their needs met by the product.

For example, 3E has made up roughly 80-90% of my RPG gaming in the last 14 years. While I like the system, the primary reason it's been the basis for so many of my campaigns is because support material from 3rd party has formed the backbone for most of those campaigns.

For example, in 2002 I was considering several different RPGs... but I really wanted to run the Freeport modules. In 2005 I considered several different RPGs... but Rappan Athuk had been burning a hole in my pocket. In 2007 I was once again looking at different options... but Monte Cook's Ptolus demanded my attention.

Without that 3rd party support, there's a pretty good chance that I would have been done with 3E somewhere around 2002 or 2003. Instead I've put thousands of more hours into it. And the net result of that was more book sales for WotC: Core rulebooks to every player I introduced. Additional supplements to both them and me. And so forth.

That's anecdotal, obviously, but it illustrates the key principle which countless studies have shown make open source and open standard projects work. And they tend to keep working... unless, of course, the guy at the apex of the support pyramid decides to abruptly vacate their position and leave a massive vacuum for somebody else to move into.

Which is what WotC did in 2008.

QuotePathfinder has shown that if you actually put the effort into making quality adventures and setting material yourself, you don't need third-party support for that content.

That's overly simplistic. Paizo produces great stuff. But there are plenty of gamers who don't like the prepackaged railroads of the Adventure Paths. 3rd party support still serves to broaden the game beyond what Paizo is capable of providing.

Paizo is also benefiting because they're doing a better job of leveraging the OGL than WotC did. In many ways, WotC had actually abandoned the OGL by 2002. If they had followed the original plan of releasing their rules material under the OGL and extending their trademark license so that 3rd party support could point directly to a broader range of WotC products and tell people to buy them they would have reaped even greater profits.

Paizo is, to some extent, forced to do what WotC didn't (because they have to release their support products under the OGL). But they don't have to release digital SRDs of every hardback supplement; but they do that because (I'm assuming) they understand how powerful the OGL is as a marketing tool for their core products.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;685005The mistake wasn't embracing the OGL. The mistake was abandoning it.

If they never released the OGL to begin with, all the headaches that went along with stupidly abandoning it would never have existed...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;685005The even bigger mistake was abandoning it in a particularly stupid way. They could have saved themselves massive headaches, for example, by extending Paizo's licenses to Dragon and Dungeon magazine.
...

And all those other stupid mistakes they made when they decided to go to 4e added to the pooch screwing even more.

Because the OGL Pandora's box was already open.

.

Quote from: Jaeger;684909They exchanged short term extra $$$ for potential long term competition problems if they screwed the pooch on the next edition.

Which they promptly went and did... [snip]

And all this is possible because WotC basically did a trust bust on themselves with the OGL.

Which was stupid of WotC.

But good for everyone else.


.

You're assuming that Wizards had the foresight to realize what a problem that would be in the long run.

How do we know they didn't possess such foresight?

Because obviously, they didn't have the foresight to realize that changing their entire strategy for the company in favor of a strictly proprietary system that quickly wore out its welcome would be even LESS successful in the long run.  :D

JG

Does anyone know who was calling the shots for the 4e changeover on the licensing side? Because they really shouldn't be working for a company. Any company.

As far as arguing that the OGL was a mistake, you'd have to argue that it did not increase revenue for WotC. Do we have any hard data on that?  I highly suspect that there isn't any.

You might be able to make an argument that the changeover from 3rd to 4th was motivated by distaste with the OGL. They certainly did everything in their power to reverse course, and in the process damaged their brand and customer goodwill.

Quote from: Jaeger;684909They exchanged short term extra $$$ for potential long term competition problems

4e was always going to be a disaster. The benefit of the OGL is that WOTC could see what gamers wanted in D&D — 3e went Pathfinder, 2e and earlier went OSR — and so, after their colossal fuckup, they would be able to learn from their lesson.

The OGL didn't create the 4e disaster, it created the opportunity to recover from it.

Yes, the OGL made competing with D&D easier, in many ways. It created opportunities for people outside WOTC to thrive. That doesn't mean WOTC would be better off with no competitors.

Monopolists have no motivation to improve. And without the OGL competitors, Wizards would have no motivation to acknowledge their failures and correct course.

The management at WOTC was delusional. It took years for them to see and admit the success of Pathfinder and the OSR (and many still deny both). Admitting the problem was the first step towards fixing it, and without the OGL people would never had to admit the problem.

"D&D sales falling?" grumble, grumble "It isn't because of flaws in 4e! No, the hobby's just dying. We don't need to change a thing!"

So, like TSR in the mid-1990's, they would have continued to push 4e as their sales slid and slid, and tried more of the same "get the MMO crowd" design tactics that were supposed to grow the hobby (but didn't). We'd have another long slide into obsolescence for D&D and the hobby.

There is no way that a lingering death would be good for WOTC. And, without the OGL and the competition it allowed, that's what we would have.

But the OGL was great for the hobby and good for WOTC, in a strictly Moment of Clarity kind of way.

"My God, I'm in a gutter with vomit all over me. And what's this... a D&D manual?" flip, flip "This isn't fucking D&D. I wrote this? Jesus Christ! What the hell have I been doing for the past 4 years? I need to get my shit together."

The OGL boosted WOTC sales and, when they went rabid and tried to strangle it, it allowed them to see the error of their ways.

I'm not saying it was an unalloyed good. Clearly, it made the consequences of WOTC's stupidity worse. (But it was the stupidity to blame, not the OGL.) But it also made recognizing and recovering from that stupidity easier.

I don't think the OGL was a mistake.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;685005The same way it helps everyone else who embraces open movements: Wide and diverse support that increases the appeal of the core products to people who would otherwise not have their needs met by the product.

For example, 3E has made up roughly 80-90% of my RPG gaming in the last 14 years. While I like the system, the primary reason it's been the basis for so many of my campaigns is because support material from 3rd party has formed the backbone for most of those campaigns.

Problem is, for every Necromancer Games, there were two or three smaller outfits filling the market with shit. Retailers got pissed off and stopped carrying all 3rd party material, because they didn't want to be left holding the bag with 400 cheap adventures churned out by the likes of Goodman Games.

And the RPG publishing market if far weaker today than it was in 2002. I just don't have any confidence that we'd see professional third-party publishers emerge that could publish genuinely high-quality books supporting Next.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;685005That's overly simplistic. Paizo produces great stuff. But there are plenty of gamers who don't like the prepackaged railroads of the Adventure Paths. 3rd party support still serves to broaden the game beyond what Paizo is capable of providing.

Who are the biggest third-party publishers for Pathfinder? Goodman? Frog God Games? Crack those books and they're fucking ugly. I don't see how a brand is enhanced by a bunch of amateur vanity products produced, it seems, by people who live above a dry-cleaners working between shifts at Staples. There simply isn't enough money to be made in micro-scale RPG publishing to attract professionals. And the lack of professionalism of the books they produce reflects on the game they're supporting. There's a reason that Paizo buries the web pages for its third-party 'partners'.

How many new players has the Slumbering Tsar really brought to Pathfinder? It's a prestige product that sits mouldering on the shelves of 950 of its 1,000 backers.

Hardcore geeks are fine with narrowly-targeted, amateur PDFs and POD books. But I don't have any confidence that they appeal to the casual and new gamers WotC is targeting Next at. And if WotC can't create varied and high-quality adventure support for Next, they're dead in the water anyway.

Quote from: James Gillen;685015You're assuming that Wizards had the foresight to realize what a problem that would be in the long run.

My posts assume no such thing. If anything I am trying to argue that what they did was stupid because they not think through the long term implications of the OGL on future D&D business...

Because if they had someone who could think more than a few years ahead they wouldn't have allowed the creation of OGL.

Maybe it's the lack of inflection with this medium - in 20/20 hindsight the OGL was a bad pure business move for WotC.

Which turned out to be good for everyone else.

Quote from: James Gillen;685015Because obviously, they didn't have the foresight to realize that changing their entire strategy for the company in favor of a strictly proprietary system that quickly wore out its welcome would be even LESS successful in the long run.  :D

JG

I 100% agree with everything in bold.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;685091Yes, the OGL made competing with D&D easier, in many ways. It created opportunities for people outside WOTC to thrive. That doesn't mean WOTC would be better off with no competitors.

(in Bold) That's all I'm saying - which from a pure business perspective was stupid of WotC to allow.

In Business the whole point is to defeat or eliminate the competition in order to grab as much market share as you can to make money...

Business 101:

Do not give away your money making IP so that others can use it to compete against you in the long run.

Do not trust-bust your own market share monopoly.

These are basic things you just do not do to yourself if you have the kind of market position WotC had...

Their lack of foresight in creating their own competitors that use what used to be their own IP is epically stupid.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;685091Monopolists have no motivation to improve. And without the OGL competitors, Wizards would have no motivation to acknowledge their failures and correct course. ... without the OGL people would never had to admit the problem.
 ...So, like TSR in the mid-1990's, they would have continued to push 4e as their sales slid and slid, and tried more of the same "get the MMO crowd" design tactics that were supposed to grow the hobby (but didn't). We'd have another long slide into obsolescence for D&D and the hobby.
... There is no way that a lingering death would be good for WOTC. And, without the OGL and the competition it allowed, that's what we would have.  

The lack of sales would eventually lead WotC to correct the 4e disaster. Just like 3e eventually replaced 2e.

Would it have taken Longer?  Yes.

But from WotC's point of view;  So what?

WotC would still have their quasi-monopoly. From a pure long term $$$ perspective that is still good for WotC.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;685091But the OGL was great for the hobby ...
...

Yes, absolutely! OGL was good for the hobby.  I'm not arguing against that...

I am just saying that from a pure mercenary, monopolist, business, evil empire perspective; OGL was not a smart move for WotC.

OGL allows competitors to pop up when/if WotC screws up an edition. Which they immediately went and did!

With OGL/pathfinder out there WotC now has to get their hustle on to try and get back lost market share as fast as possible, before the good folks at Pazio can really leverage their position...

And as I already posted before:

Quote from: Jaeger;685091From a pure market perspective this kind of competition is great for the consumer and the hobby.

And all this is possible because WotC basically did a trust bust on themselves with the OGL.

Which was stupid of WotC.

But good for everyone else.

The thing that's being constantly overlooked is that TSR had been bought by WotC, 2nd edition was basically down the drain, as well as D&D. Most people I knew at the time, back in France, and I'm talking 1998/1999, thought D&D was DEAD.

You want an opinion? If WotC had not gone for the OGL and 3rd ed had not been what it was, then D&D - at least as a commercial product, a brand - would be DEAD today. 3rd ed incorporated enough elements to please different types of gamers and play styles, at least at its inception, and the OGL provided a bridge for the aficionados to become part of the game and create, produce adventures and game materials themselves, which created a chain reaction that tremendously helped in making it, and the d20 system with it, the uncontested top dog of the 2000s.

That's an amazing comeback story. Saying otherwise is IMO pure revisionist crap.

And if you want more opinion about it, I think that WotC abandoning the OGL and wanting to put back the lid on the box was completely retarded on their part. And I mean it: not just a bad decision, or mistaken judgment, because there was an entirely broken strategy behind it, there were multiple mistakes that took place while unfolding this strategy, such as pulling Dragon and Dungeon from Paizo, putting all your eggs in the same basket and betting on DDI while the previous track record of WotC was ABYSMAL in regards to electronic platforms and products, and so on, so forth.

It was RETARDED. As in "what the FUCK where they thinking?!" retarded. To me, IMO, etc.

Quote from: Benoist;685172... the OGL provided a bridge for the aficionados to become part of the game and create, produce adventures and game materials themselves, which created a chain reaction that tremendously helped in making it, and the d20 system with it, the uncontested top dog of the 2000s.

But they could have created a license that gave them a good deal of what made D20/OGL good for the hobby, without giving away the store in the way that the OGL did.

Quote from: Benoist;685172And if you want more opinion about it, I think that WotC abandoning the OGL and wanting to put back the lid on the box was completely retarded on their part. ...
It was RETARDED. As in "what the FUCK where they thinking?!" To me, IMO, etc.

100% correct!

Once Pandora's box was opened there was no going back.

They should have come out with a simplified/streamlined OGL based rules set for 4e. (basically what they say they are doing with Next)

And they should not have cut Pazio off at the knees by pulling the dungeon/dragon license. If anything I would have tried to bring them closer into the official D&D fold...

.

Quote from: Jaeger;685173But they could have created a license that gave them a good deal of what made D20/OGL good for the hobby, without giving away the store in the way that the OGL did.

When dealing with an hypothetical instead of history you can come up with a lot of "what-ifs" and "maybes". I for one seriously doubt that anything short of the OGL as it was would have accomplished the same marketing traction for D&D 3rd edition, the d20 System and Wizards of the Coast, precisely because it gave an initial confidence to third-party publishers that the license was open, perpetual, irrevocable, with the freedom to designate Product Identity as desired and on a case-by-case basis, etc.

Still aside from "what-ifs" and "maybes", the history of the D&D game shows clearly that D&D CAN make another comeback as it did in the early 2000s. Accounting for the fact that the OGL is now a reality of the market WotC has to deal with, one way or the other, I think the honchos behind 5th ed should consider actually banking on the open gaming strategy again, that is, explicitly, to create a 5th edition SRD and make it OGL again to set up the conditions for this comeback. Otherwise, WotC/D&D will keep fighting against itself in the form of its "evil twin" Paizo/Pathfinder who will still profit from the OGL Wizards let down in the recent past. That latter strategy would be a losing strategy, in my mind.

Bottom line: if WotC wants to be top dog again, and is not content with the #2 spot on the market, it has to make 5th ed/Next OGL. No ifs nor buts.

I'm betting on some sort of open license.  So much, in fact, that I've been working on my "old school" super dungeon designed for Next.  Barring they completely change the core of the game (which I doubt), I'll only have to do minor tweaks to stats and such.

I have to agree with benoist, wotc getting rid of ogl, after we had all basked in it for nearly a decade was a bad idea. About as smart as selling a 4% milk that tasks like skim. We had ogl for so long and knew what we lost by its removal. EVERYTHING was d20 fom 2000-2008. Compare that with previous years, especially the 90s, where D&D almost fell to games like Vampire.

It seems to me that the OGL was a pretty good move at the time but it creates the problem that if your next edition is a significant change to the previous one, you have in effect created your own competition. The RPG industry and D&D in particular is based on significant changes through new editions. Unless the plan is to make DDN some sort of final edition evergreen rules set, I very much doubt that they will go OGL again.

Ultimately it's a good short term move but probably a bad long term one.

Quote from: soviet;685194It seems to me that the OGL was a pretty good move at the time but it creates the problem that if your next edition is a significant change to the previous one, you have in effect created your own competition. The RPG industry and D&D in particular is based on significant changes through new editions. Unless the plan is to make DDN some sort of final edition evergreen rules set, I very much doubt that they will go OGL again.

Ultimately it's a good short term move but probably a bad long term one.

Not sure I agree that is what the industry is built on. I think a transition similar to previous ones would not have presented a problem. Publishers were prepared to make that transition with them. It was both the radical break that 4E made from 3E and the terms of the new licese that caused publishers to go their own way.

Quote from: Jaeger;685009If they never released the OGL to begin with, all the headaches that went along with stupidly abandoning it would never have existed...

If they had never released the OGL to begin with, they also wouldn't have reaped all the benefits that came with it.

Quote from: soviet;685194It seems to me that the OGL was a pretty good move at the time but it creates the problem that if your next edition is a significant change to the previous one, you have in effect created your own competition.

The reality is that any reboot edition of an RPG that isn't the result of deep and clear-cut dissatisfaction in the fanbase will split the fanbase, often with a significant proportion or even a majority of your existing customers simply staying with the old edition.

I think 4E would have been nearly as disastrous for WotC even if Pathfinder didn't exist: Those customers would have simply stayed with 3E and disappeared from the market.

The argument could be made that, without the OGL, WotC wouldn't have felt the need to do a massive reboot edition for 4E (in order to break ties with the OGL). But that takes us pretty far out along a chain of imaginary scenarios.

Quote from: Haffrung;685122Problem is, for every Necromancer Games, there were two or three smaller outfits filling the market with shit. Retailers got pissed off and stopped carrying all 3rd party material, because they didn't want to be left holding the bag with 400 cheap adventures churned out by the likes of Goodman Games.

First: Goodman Games is actually one of the success stories of the third party market. You appear to be confusing your personal opinion of product quality for market analysis.

Second: I agree. A lot of game retailers were absolutely horrible at inventory management. As a consumer, I really don't care. If you are incompetent at the basic skills of running a retail business, you shouldn't be running a retail business. The idea that we need to save crappy game stores doesn't have much traction with me.

Third: As a consumer, the shit is irrelevant. There are more than enough tools for me to separate the cream from the chaff. The only thing I care about is the good stuff and there's a lot more of that as a result of the OGL... which, in turn, results in me playing more of the core game.

QuoteThere's a reason that Paizo buries the web pages for its third-party 'partners'.

By "bury" you mean "link to them from the Pathfinder homepage?

A lot of your commentary here seems to have a serious disconnect from reality.

Quote from: Benoist;685172The thing that's being constantly overlooked is that TSR had been bought by WotC, 2nd edition was basically down the drain, as well as D&D. Most people I knew at the time, back in France, and I'm talking 1998/1999, thought D&D was DEAD.

You want an opinion? If WotC had not gone for the OGL and 3rd ed had not been what it was, then D&D - at least as a commercial product, a brand - would be DEAD today. 3rd ed incorporated enough elements to please different types of gamers and play styles, at least at its inception, and the OGL provided a bridge for the aficionados to become part of the game and create, produce adventures and game materials themselves, which created a chain reaction that tremendously helped in making it, and the d20 system with it, the uncontested top dog of the 2000s.

That's an amazing comeback story. Saying otherwise is IMO pure revisionist crap.

I think that this is absolutely correct.  It is not that D&D was a dead system when 3rd edition D&D came out but that there was a lot of draft away from the system.  I often forget just how much I liked 3.0 D&D and how little of the later problems were present at the beginning.  For levels 1 to 6/10 or so, the system is really sharp; issues arise later but by the a ton of interesting adventuring has been done.  

But pulling momentum behind their product was key to getting people to try it out.  And the OGL certainly created a lot of excitement.  Heck, in the run up to 4E, a lot of companies were hoping on jump on the new edition release with updated product.  

Other games with solid mechanics (GURPS, RUNEQUEST, HERO, ROLEMASTER) were not able to make this jump back into the limelight.  So the OGL may well have been essential.  Given that, the decision to leave it the way that they did might not have been the most optimal strategy possible.

Y'know, I wonder how 4E would have done if they had just branded 3E as "Basic D&D" and 4E as "Advanced D&D" while keeping the OGL.  Marketing could have stopped a lot of the schism.

I disagree that the OGL was a big part of the success of 3E. Fact is, most of the huge demographic who had been part of the early 80s boom had drifted away from RPGs altogether in the 90s. The release 3E coincided with a different life stage of that huge cohort, and the widepsread mainstream publicity for the game prompted a lot of them to give D&D a try again. Combine that with the new generation of M:tG players who seized on the customization and optimization potential of 3e, and you have WotC's customer-base for 3e.

Anyone who thinks the OGL was a bad idea is wrong.  It had an amazing effect.  It was a great long-term strategy.  

But it was holding a tiger by the tail.  When you find yourself in that position, don't let go.  

Wizards of the Coast abandoned their position as the 'main producer' of quality content when they abandoned 3.x.  As a member of the 'core audience' of 3.x, I was deeply offended by every aspect of the conversion.  As a long-time subscriber to Dragon and Dungeon, yanking the licenses was unforgivable.  Replacing a print product with an electronic only product - even worse.  I like 'dead tree products'.  I don't mind having a PDF in addition to my print products, but I like gaming books.  4th edition with the heavy emphasis on electronic media was all kinds of bad - if I wanted to play with a computer, I could play Neverwinter Nights.  

Trying to bury 3rd edition considering the OGL made it a 'forever' product was a mistake.  It reeks of hubris.  They mistook enjoyment of the game for loyalty to WotC.  They weren't big enough to kill the edition they had given life to.  Thinking they were was their mistake.  

But if they continued to support the OGL, or even CONTINUE it with 4th edition, they likely would have continued to be successful.  3rd party publishers didn't support 4th edition because the license was terrible - they had no choice but to become competitors.  

If 4th edition were a better game and they had done this a few years later when 3.x was really losing it's shine, even then it might not have worked.  But as it was, it was retarded.  But the OGL - that was brilliant.

I think you are spot on Deadgm

Quote from: Jaeger;685169Do not give away your money making IP so that others can use it to compete against you in the long run.

You say that like it's an absolute Law of Business. It's not.

Companies license IP all the goddamn time. Constantly. To competitors, even. People who make products that directly compete with their own.

Patent Pools, for one. Enter MP4.

Technical standards, for another. Enter FRAND. (The "R" means "reasonable".)

Companies license IP all the time. All it takes is them benefitting from the exchange. Which WOTC did.

Quote from: Jaeger;685009If they never released the OGL to begin with, all the headaches that went along with stupidly abandoning it would never have existed...

And if I never bought a car, all the headaches that went along with crashing it would never have happened.

Therefore one should never, ever buy cars. Or any kind of vehicle. Or a stove. Or couch. Or fall in love. Or get married. Or get a job.

Something bad might happen, which would never have happened otherwise. So doing it must be a bad idea.

(BTW, have you seen YOLO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Otla5157c)?)

Look, just because you drove drunk and crashed your car doesn't mean buying it was a bad idea. I'd argue that, just maybe, it was the drunk driving to blame, not the car. Especially when you got so much benefit from the automobile for nearly a decade.

Quote from: Jaeger;685169Do not trust-bust your own market share monopoly.

So, using your specific definition of smart — helping to establish a monopoly — the OGL wasn't smart. But that's not a definition I'd ever agree with. (For various reasons, taking us far beyond the immediate question.)

Since we have completely different definitions, we can never settle the question. Agree to disagree?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;685416I think you are spot on Deadgm

Indeed.

JG

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685415Anyone who thinks the OGL was a bad idea is wrong.  It had an amazing effect.  It was a great long-term strategy.  

But it was holding a tiger by the tail.  When you find yourself in that position, don't let go.  

Wizards of the Coast abandoned their position as the 'main producer' of quality content when they abandoned 3.x.  As a member of the 'core audience' of 3.x, I was deeply offended by every aspect of the conversion.  As a long-time subscriber to Dragon and Dungeon, yanking the licenses was unforgivable.  Replacing a print product with an electronic only product - even worse.  I like 'dead tree products'.  I don't mind having a PDF in addition to my print products, but I like gaming books.  4th edition with the heavy emphasis on electronic media was all kinds of bad - if I wanted to play with a computer, I could play Neverwinter Nights.  

Trying to bury 3rd edition considering the OGL made it a 'forever' product was a mistake.  It reeks of hubris.  They mistook enjoyment of the game for loyalty to WotC.  They weren't big enough to kill the edition they had given life to.  Thinking they were was their mistake.  

But if they continued to support the OGL, or even CONTINUE it with 4th edition, they likely would have continued to be successful.  3rd party publishers didn't support 4th edition because the license was terrible - they had no choice but to become competitors.  

If 4th edition were a better game and they had done this a few years later when 3.x was really losing it's shine, even then it might not have worked.  But as it was, it was retarded.  But the OGL - that was brilliant.

I'm desperately curious about Wizard's train of thought here. Was it about getting on Hasbro's good side? Was it just typical mismanagement bullshit? I've heard there were people at Wizards who hated the OGL from day one and finally got a chance to 'put the nail in it's coffin', did they just ascend to power?  

Because those people didn't really grasp what open source does, did they?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685415Anyone who thinks the OGL was a bad idea is wrong.  It had an amazing effect.  It was a great long-term strategy.  

But it was holding a tiger by the tail.  When you find yourself in that position, don't let go.  

Wizards of the Coast abandoned their position as the 'main producer' of quality content when they abandoned 3.x.  As a member of the 'core audience' of 3.x, I was deeply offended by every aspect of the conversion.  As a long-time subscriber to Dragon and Dungeon, yanking the licenses was unforgivable.  Replacing a print product with an electronic only product - even worse.  I like 'dead tree products'.  I don't mind having a PDF in addition to my print products, but I like gaming books.  4th edition with the heavy emphasis on electronic media was all kinds of bad - if I wanted to play with a computer, I could play Neverwinter Nights.  

Trying to bury 3rd edition considering the OGL made it a 'forever' product was a mistake.  It reeks of hubris.  They mistook enjoyment of the game for loyalty to WotC.  They weren't big enough to kill the edition they had given life to.  Thinking they were was their mistake.  

But if they continued to support the OGL, or even CONTINUE it with 4th edition, they likely would have continued to be successful.  3rd party publishers didn't support 4th edition because the license was terrible - they had no choice but to become competitors.  

If 4th edition were a better game and they had done this a few years later when 3.x was really losing it's shine, even then it might not have worked.  But as it was, it was retarded.  But the OGL - that was brilliant.

I agree with this 100%.

Quote from: JonWake;685552I've heard there were people at Wizards who hated the OGL from day one and finally got a chance to 'put the nail in it's coffin', did they just ascend to power?  

This appears to be the case. If you look at all the people at WotC who were talking about the OGL and evergreen products in the 1999-2001 timeframe, you'll notice that virtually all of them had left the company by 2003. There was a major ideological shift within the company that led to the creation of 3.5 and, later, 4E.

I talk about this in greater detail here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2846/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-supplement-treadmill). If you click through there, make sure to scroll down to where Ryan Dancey comments on the post.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685415Anyone who thinks the OGL was a bad idea is wrong.  It had an amazing effect.  It was a great long-term strategy.  

But it was holding a tiger by the tail.  When you find yourself in that position, don't let go.  

Wizards of the Coast abandoned their position as the 'main producer' of quality content when they abandoned 3.x.  As a member of the 'core audience' of 3.x, I was deeply offended by every aspect of the conversion.  As a long-time subscriber to Dragon and Dungeon, yanking the licenses was unforgivable.  Replacing a print product with an electronic only product - even worse.  I like 'dead tree products'.  I don't mind having a PDF in addition to my print products, but I like gaming books.  4th edition with the heavy emphasis on electronic media was all kinds of bad - if I wanted to play with a computer, I could play Neverwinter Nights.  

Trying to bury 3rd edition considering the OGL made it a 'forever' product was a mistake.  It reeks of hubris.  They mistook enjoyment of the game for loyalty to WotC.  They weren't big enough to kill the edition they had given life to.  Thinking they were was their mistake.  

But if they continued to support the OGL, or even CONTINUE it with 4th edition, they likely would have continued to be successful.  3rd party publishers didn't support 4th edition because the license was terrible - they had no choice but to become competitors.  

If 4th edition were a better game and they had done this a few years later when 3.x was really losing it's shine, even then it might not have worked.  But as it was, it was retarded.  But the OGL - that was brilliant.

Agreed.

OGL is an excellent idea, as long as you control the "source product" - whatever is needed for others to use their 3rd party supplement with your work. You're basically offloading the whole idea of line support on someone else's shoulders, and they need to worry about their own payment.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685415Anyone who thinks the OGL was a bad idea is wrong.  It had an amazing effect.  It was a great long-term strategy.  

But it was holding a tiger by the tail.  When you find yourself in that position, don't let go.  

Wizards of the Coast abandoned their position as the 'main producer' of quality content when they abandoned 3.x.  As a member of the 'core audience' of 3.x, I was deeply offended by every aspect of the conversion.  As a long-time subscriber to Dragon and Dungeon, yanking the licenses was unforgivable.  Replacing a print product with an electronic only product - even worse.  I like 'dead tree products'.  I don't mind having a PDF in addition to my print products, but I like gaming books.  4th edition with the heavy emphasis on electronic media was all kinds of bad - if I wanted to play with a computer, I could play Neverwinter Nights.  

Trying to bury 3rd edition considering the OGL made it a 'forever' product was a mistake.  It reeks of hubris.  They mistook enjoyment of the game for loyalty to WotC.  They weren't big enough to kill the edition they had given life to.  Thinking they were was their mistake.  

But if they continued to support the OGL, or even CONTINUE it with 4th edition, they likely would have continued to be successful.  3rd party publishers didn't support 4th edition because the license was terrible - they had no choice but to become competitors.  

If 4th edition were a better game and they had done this a few years later when 3.x was really losing it's shine, even then it might not have worked.  But as it was, it was retarded.  But the OGL - that was brilliant.

This might be the first time ever I agree 100% with deadGMwalking...bloody brilliant post, deadGM, and damn true, too, all of it, as far as I can see.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;685416I think you are spot on Deadgm

I agree too.

And for what its worth, I absolutely love the ddi character generator.

But...

I really wish there was one for 1E/2E.

Quote from: Bill;685580But...

I really wish there was one for 1E/2E.

Do they need one though?

I mean sure if using 2e with all the bells & whistles or, moreso, 2.5e with same, I can kinda see it, I guess, but...

Allthough given the giant number of spells available in late 2e/2.5e, I think you have a point...

Quote from: The Ent;685583Do they need one though?

I mean sure if using 2e with all the bells & whistles or, moreso, 2.5e with same, I can kinda see it, I guess, but...

Allthough given the giant number of spells available in late 2e/2.5e, I think you have a point...

One useful aspect of a good generator is that it has everything you need in the generator, so when your ftr/cleric/wizard is level gaining levels the generator has all the info right there and you just update as you gain a level.

There's the dated AD&D Core 2.0 automator. Wonderful for the time and matched pretty much all my needs. Technically still does.

Only issue is in these modern days I'm spoiled with multi-Gigs of RAM in everything, including phones. And my legacy machine is all kinds of slow in comparison. Further several MS window emulators hiccup when running certain dated software. But when I dig out the old machine the program still runs like a song (a waltz compared to modern happycore, but whatever).

Quote from: Bill;685585One useful aspect of a good generator is that it has everything you need in the generator, so when your ftr/cleric/wizard is level gaining levels the generator has all the info right there and you just update as you gain a level.

Oh I can absolutely see that. :)
(Half-elf ftr/cl/wz is a chore true!)

Quote from: The Ent;685588Oh I can absolutely see that. :)
(Half-elf ftr/cl/wz is a chore true!)

And Bard...if its 1E!

Quote from: Bill;685590And Bard...if its 1E!

Oh GAWD, I've never even tried playing/GMing that one. Too scary! :D

I remember the generator that came with the 2e AD&D CD compilation thing, can't remember what it was called anymore. Had a bunch of the books in a terrible digital format that was slow as balls, but the generator was pretty nice.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;685602I remember the generator that came with the 2e AD&D CD compilation thing, can't remember what it was called anymore. Had a bunch of the books in a terrible digital format that was slow as balls, but the generator was pretty nice.

Someone learn whatever computer language people use these days and write a new one!

I think the one mistake with OGL that was most costly, was the failure to include an expiration date that was far enough in the future to give comfort to third party users that their efforts would not be wasted, but still close enough in time to accommodate the natural cycle of the game.  So, I am talking roughly 15 years into the future (with another grandfathering for hard-copies still on the shelves of FLGS at the expiration date), from the first date of OGL release.

I think 3rd parties would have still produced plenty under that scenario of 15 years to enjoy sales, and WOTC would have not had the hassle of releasing their IP for all time into essentially the public domain.

It's the infinite nature of the OGL that causes the harm...it benefits others long after it no longer benefits WOTC.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;685602I remember the generator that came with the 2e AD&D CD compilation thing, can't remember what it was called anymore. Had a bunch of the books in a terrible digital format that was slow as balls, but the generator was pretty nice.

There were two versions (Core Rules and Core Rules 2.0, which had splat books included and a differernt mapping sysem).  I have them both.  In fact, I just used them last week to build a character for a 2e campaign I'm starting in a couple weeks.

Works fine in Win 7.  I did have to download the add on to support MS help files, and occassionally you get weird pop up windows saying it doesn't have access to save to certain locations, but those don't make it unworkable.  Very easy to generate a PC.

I would love a good character generator - but every one that I've ever used has one major problem - they don't allow easy integration of custom material.

If you have a houserule that everyone gets a 'skills background bonus' at 1st level, your character generator needs to be able to handle that.  If your 9th level fighter gets a kiss from the Queen of the Fairies that gives a permanent +1 to saving throws, the generator needs to be able to reflect that.  

Custom Material could be a unique race, unique class, feats (for 3.x) and non-standard abilities.  If you're blasted by radiation and grow a third arm (totally functional) that impacts the way you can wield multiple weapons, it might need reflection on the character sheet.  

Since it's nice to print up a sheet that has everything on it correctly, and have electronic backup in case a soda spills across your 14th level wizard, a character generation program that can handle all those things would be a dream come true - but I've never seen it yet.  

I tried to use DM Genie quite a bit, and it did have some custom options, but I could never get it to do what I wanted.  And I'd hate to reduce the scope of the game because of a limitation in software not related to a limitation in my imagination.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685667There were two versions (Core Rules and Core Rules 2.0, which had splat books included and a differernt mapping sysem).  I have them both.  In fact, I just used them last week to build a character for a 2e campaign I'm starting in a couple weeks.

Works fine in Win 7.  I did have to download the add on to support MS help files, and occassionally you get weird pop up windows saying it doesn't have access to save to certain locations, but those don't make it unworkable.  Very easy to generate a PC.

Does it now? I switched to OS X way before Win 7, so it's good to hear compatibility has changed. Now to debate if to boot camp on a current machine or new, isolated, offline-only machine is worth it...

(edit: and something topic relevant -- I do think Mistwell is right, the unlimited nature of the OGL fights WotC long after. If it was a restricted timeframe it would have done (and will do) their bottom line less damage. But what was bad for Hasbro has been a boon for the player community, so I do find it hard to lament their self-inflicted wound.)

I just read on another forum that there are over 3000 feats in DDI to choose from?

Hard to see how that could be done without computer support.

I imagine it isn't that difficult.

Do you know how many 3.x feats there were?  

Between WotC products (Complete Series for example) and Dragon Magazine there were at least that many - if you include 3rd party supplements there were a lot more.  

The thing is, for any particular character concept, there weren't many worht having - especially since characters get so few.  So you only had to look at the ones that were likely to be relevant to your concept - so you only have to consider a small subsection of the available choices for any single character.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;685711The thing is, for any particular character concept, there weren't many worht having - especially since characters get so few.  So you only had to look at the ones that were likely to be relevant to your concept - so you only have to consider a small subsection of the available choices for any single character.

How do you know what the small subsection is unless you have a comprehensive source for all feats?

Quote from: Haffrung;685738How do you know what the small subsection is unless you have a comprehensive source for all feats?

Sometimes you'll know by the sources.  

If you have an archer character concept, you'll usually want to look in 'martial' sources.  Since a fuck-ton of feats are devoted to magic, you can ignore all the ones that are in 'necromancy' sources.  Unless you're looking for some kind of necromantic archery feat.  

Passing familiarity is sufficient for most purposes.  And likely your group does include one 'obsessive' who knows what every option does and can make recommendations on what you hope to do.