Save 3rd Party Dungeons and Dragons Publishers
2011 February 28
by Chris Dias
This is an open letter to Wizards of the Coast in a bid to stave off the flight of GSL companies and promote an atmosphere of mutualism to better all parties.
Talk about this Letter here.
Also WotC might see stuff posted on the forums including this board. Try e-mailing them or writing an old fashioned letter.
Companies that make adventure for 4E are not competitors. WotC makes few and far between adventures...
Correct. They are not competitors. The 3rd party market actually increases the exposure.
Lest we not forget that D&D itself created the 3rd party market for D&D. That market evolved and grew. And then they effectively killed it outright.
The 4e GSL makes 3rd Party entry into 4e a much narrower venture, and severely limits the type of products that can be made for 4e. Furthermore, the presence of DDI, compelte with the Compendium, Character Builder, and soon-to-be Monster Builder and Virtual Table, subscriber integration of 3rd Party material is practically non-existent. The offline CB and MB did make incorporating 3rd Party material easier, but it also made access to the intended subscriber-only tools rather ubiquitous, without a subscription, and I suspect this is largely the reason it was moved to online-only access.
Perhaps the pendulum has swung a bit too far in the other direction. In 3e, WotC gave them an inch, and like a weed, they took a yard. Or is it a matter of perspective? The inch WotC had intended to grant is still there, but 3rd Party entities are not satisfied with it (I don't fault them for that), and are not as willing to partake of a smaller share of the 4e pie, regardless of how many servings of that segment they are allowed to have.
Although WotC effectively created the 3rd party market for Dungeons & Dragons, it did so for the purpose of accessories. But that market went over the 3e OGL and SRD with a fine-toothed comb and discovered that it could make more than modules. It could also make Monster Manuals, Player's Handbooks, Dungeon master's Guides, and Books of Erotic Fantasy. And WotC was not pleased, because the 3rd Party market indeed became competitors.
The 4e GSL makes 3rd Party entry into 4e a much narrower venture, and severely limits the type of products that can be made for 4e. Furthermore, the presence of DDI, compelte with the Compendium, Character Builder, and soon-to-be Monster Builder and Virtual Table, subscriber integration of 3rd Party material is practically non-existent. The offline CB and MB did make incorporating 3rd Party material easier, but it also made access to the intended subscriber-only tools rather ubiquitous, without a subscription, and I suspect this is largely the reason it was moved to online-only access.
Perhaps the pendulum has swung a bit too far in the other direction. In 3e, WotC gave them an inch, and like a weed, they took a yard. Or is it a matter of perspective? The inch WotC had intended to grant is still there, but 3rd Party entities are not satisfied with it (I don't fault them for that), and are not as willing to partake of a smaller share of the 4e pie, regardless of how many servings of that segment they are allowed to have.
The OGL added VALUE to the D&D product line, for a while it showcased how SUPERIOUR some (some, not all) of WotC's products were while it gave you options! Some would argue that OGL is what fueled the success of D&D, and Pathfinder's current success should be considered evidence of this - have you SEEN the amount of 3rd party products available for Pathfinder (and by its very nature, compatible with 3.5).
While the GSL pretty much narrowed the availability, or desire to make 3rd party material. As some companies have shown, it's been more successful to stick with OGL/Pathfinder products.
Chris Dias's plea, or request, or suggestions are sincere ones, and from a point of view of a gaming community member that wants to SUPPORT D&D 4e. If WotC were to accept even some of them, it would make a huge statement, that WotC supports them. Face it, all D&D gamers are part of the RPG community, and the desire for them to make adventures, supplements and accessories for the game should be recognized and supported. They're NOT competitors, they're supporters.
It should also be obvious which products are rip-offs, violations of the GSL (or the intent of the OGL for that matter.) Those products can obviously be ignored. But recognizing, and therefore validating, 3rd Party products from DES, Goodman Games and say Green Ronin if they were inclined, would be huge--a win-win for everyone.
WotC can look at their game as a platform, such as the iPad or Android, and support 3rd party developers. The success of a platform is almost always dependant on the availability and quality of applications. Take the XBox 360 as an example of a platform, HALO which is successful was developed in-house, but Call of Duty is even more successful--developed by Activision, a 3rd party. But it doesn't make the Xbox any crappier, it sells more xboxes!
The OGL was mis-used, or aguably abused. WotC (or Hasbro) probably felt threatened by this, and created the restricted and tightly held GSL instead. It's too late to change that now, but most people know and understand the intent of the original OGL, so some of that spirit should be afforded to 3rd party GSL products.
Saying the OGL was abused or misused is silly. Even bad products are good publicity. And it didn't cost WOTC one dime for what was, essentially, free advertising.
Oh, well. WOTC will figure it out.
Or, much like TSR before them, they'll flop and the IP goes to someone else. Maybe Paizo.
Economics be a harsh mistress, yar...
I wouldn't mind seeing more options but I also don't want a bunch of junk flooding the market just because a publisher can put 4th Ed. on the cover. There needs to be some sort of play testing or quality assurance by Wizards if there is to be any continuity.
I agree. WotC needs to pimp out its R&D department or its quality department...
Or, much like TSR before them, they'll flop and the IP goes to someone else. Maybe Paizo.
Trouble is, it won't. A big multinational like Hasbro (which owns WotC) won't let go of its IP. It'll shelve it until demand improves, or repurpose it, as it's already starting to do with things like Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, and Fortune Cards...
Damned right, where do you think all the wretched power gaming horrors of 3.5 came from? Too damned many poorly thought out, poorly planned, ill advized, dumb idiot notions all wrapped up in nice hard covers and disguised as legit content 'so it had to be ok right?'.
At least with 4th edition, we know the source is primarily Wizards, and if it is a screwed up thinking, no logic was employed, bad idea publication, Wizards only has themselves to blame.
Lost count of how many books I witnessed claiming to support 3.5, and frankly all they did was mire 3.5 in junk that only served to make being a DM a real hell. 'No Bob, I'm not allowing that build in the game'. 'Why not Frank?' "Because it's broken, it's dumb, and the idiot that wrote it needs to be taken out and beaten'.
It was a good time indeed.
OGL was fantastic for choice and ideas.
Ding!
If you're allowing content into your games simply because it's published and has a price tag attached, then you only have yourself to blame. OGL and 3rd party was all about finding those diamonds in the rough. Some people do enjoy that sort of thing, you know. If you don't, there's an easy solution. Don't buy it. But having them available most certainly does not harm the game, specifically your game, unless you allow it to.
I fail to see why the GSL is so evil. Is it just because they restricted it from a free for all into an actual viable licensing model? Does Wizards of the Coast need to sell its shirt to remain viable?
And I need a point of clarification from the posters in this thread: are you saying the OGL didn't create competition? IF so, what do you call Pathfinder?
And I need a point of clarification from the posters in this thread: are you saying the OGL didn't create competition? IF so, what do you call Pathfinder?
Pathfinder was created in the wake of 3.5, was it not, once it was learned that 3.5 was being retired? Either way, while it is technically competition, I would hardly call it worthy competition. And even if it was worthy competition, I don't consider competition a bad thing, particularly for the consumer (read: us).
Competition typically leads to better quality, more variety, and better value for your dollar.
I fail to see why the GSL is so evil. Is it just because they restricted it from a free for all into an actual viable licensing model? Does Wizards of the Coast need to sell its shirt to remain viable?
Who said the GSL was evil? I do think it's a little over-restrictive, but not evil, especially not when using it is the publisher's choice. However, WotC tossed this license out there and then offered nothing else. How often has the System Reference Document been updated? How hard would it have been to allow people to plug 3pp stuff into the CB?
And I need a point of clarification from the posters in this thread: are you saying the OGL didn't create competition? IF so, what do you call Pathfinder?
Competition is a good thing. Of course, it's questionable how much direct competition the OGL really created. Granted, I don't think it was ok that companies copied and pasted stuff to create their own players handbooks, but how much money did WotC really lose to them in comparison to what it gained? Besides, the GSL already prevents that sort of behavior so why does WotC have to go the extra mile to cut 3pps out of the loop?
Besides, the GSL already prevents that sort of behavior so why does WotC have to go the extra mile to cut 3pps out of the loop?
What "Extra" are they doing to cut these guys out of the loop? I've seen maybe two C&Ds since the GSL was launched and they were for very specific, actionable items. IIRC, one was for wholesale copying of IP (on the power cards or w/e) and the other had nothing to do with the core functionality of the program in question (MasterPlan marches on).
I honestly don't think WotC is doing anything to prevent 3pps from creating content for 4e. I think the reason many don't is because they would rather continue to use the OGL in perpetuity.
EDIT: I want to add that I think competition is a fine thing. Especially from a consumer's pov. I personally don't think that competition that copy/pastes large swaths its competitor's ideas is really good for anybody, even the consumer. I also don't buy that it's WotC's responsibility to foster competition.
What "Extra" are they doing to cut these guys out of the loop? I've seen maybe two C&Ds since the GSL was launched and they were for very specific, actionable items. IIRC, one was for wholesale copying of IP (on the power cards or w/e) and the other had nothing to do with the core functionality of the program in question (MasterPlan marches on).
They don't have to do anything. They have the GSL itself which 3rd parties readily admit strike quite a bit of fear into them that they don't even try to produce anything. That, and Wizard's finances which allows them to employe an army of lawyers if necessary.
Essentially, the GSL is doing exactly what they intended it to do. Keeping most people away from creating content.
As for Masterplan, you are right. It still succeeds despite the GSL and the C&D. Further testament that some leniency should be applied to the GSL so more of these types of utilities can shine.
I think the point here is that the GSL is not overly restrictive. If Masterplan and Amethyst can exist then nothing is wrong that I can see.
You realize that letter came from Amethyst's creator right?
You realize that letter came from Amethyst's creator right?
Which is rather irionic. It's like a person claiming they can't reach the cookie jar, as they sit there eating a cookie they pulled from the cookie jar.
You realize that letter came from Amethyst's creator right?
I do. That's why I included it in my reply. Mostly to hint at what seeker said above.