Print This Post
Wizards, 4e, and the OGL
If you haven’t heard elsewhere yet, Wizards has announced that they are selling the rights to publish anything under the 4e OGL for $5,000. Purchase now, and you can sell your products for several months following the release of 4e. If publishers don’t purchase the license, they’ll still be able to publish material for 4e - just not until 2009.
Why? Wizards say they’re doing this “to ensure quality.” Somehow, I doubt it. To be sure, following the release of 3rd Edition a lot of unbalanced and poorly constructed products were released by third parties. But then, Wizards released an unbalanced and poorly constructed product when they released 3rd Edition. The product was so unbalanced and poorly constructed, in fact, that they had re-release the game a few years later - no new features were included, only fixes to what was broken before. Oh, and Wizards doubled the money they made off 3rd Edition.
But what does this really mean in the long-run, other than more profits for Wizards?
We’ll see less support for 4e. Not just initially, but for the lifetime of the product, there will be substantially less third party products. Many companies won’t bother to switch to using the new d20 license, but instead focus on continuing to use the old d20 system that all their products have been released for in the past. These companies will also be catering to the crowd of players who won’t bother to switch from 3.5 either, which brings me to the next consequence.
Less people will play. Less support, no conversion guide from the old editions, and no ability to preview and even test-play the system in-depth thanks to the OGL? People will stick with what they already know, have, and love - and don’t have to spend another $100 on to start over.
New systems will come out and compete with d20 and the new 4e system. Publishers who aren’t using the d20 OGL may find that it’s better for them to create a new system or fall back to an old one that fits the game better than shoe-horn the game into d20. This competition will further take away both support and players from 4e and Wizards community.
New players will be attracted to the game table again due to the new array of choices and products. Players who left because it felt like they were repeatedly playing the same game in different settings when they played d20 will be attracted by the new choices and systems, and may return to the game table.
Wizards will begin to lose its ridiculous monopoly on RPGs. I’m not saying that Wizards will go out of business or even stop being the biggest company in the industry, but as they continue to do things which create more growth in the industry outside of their company than inside, or things which push potential customers away from hearing about products or increasing their costs to play and use their products - as all of these things happen, Wizards’ grip on the RPG industry will begin to slip, and other companies will slowly begin to gain ground and fill in the cracks left by Wizards.
What’s next, Wizards?
Comments
19 Responses to “Wizards, 4e, and the OGL”
Leave a Reply
I have to respectfully disagree with you on almost all of your heartfelt arguments. I don’t want to answer point by point as I propose that we agree to disagree.
My stance is and remains: let’s see where this goes and at worst, I’ll have spent the money on a Player’s Handbook I won’t use. Not a 1st for me (2nd Edition PHB is such a case)
However, I will address the “D&D is going to decline” arguments… as I believe absolutely nothing of it.
D&D is the lion’s share of the RPG market, all other games exist mostly because of D&D as players start exploring and find the other smaller press games (World of Darkness and Gurps are exceptions but their combined market shares (including all other tabletop RPGs) are less then 20% last time I checked my FLGS supplier’s catalog).
I’m sure the big publishers (Green Ronin, Privateer Press, etc) will shell out the 5000$ just to have a jump on the market (and I’m willing to bet the bigger 3rd party probably proposed it to WotC just to get an edge in the market).
I believe that what 4e is turning out to be is a PR mess of the 1st order as it’s being presented and handled in a way that is triggering the worst of human reactions set out in Change management theory…
And that’s why I have refrained from blogging on this or reacting more on this..
But quite frankly Omnius, and I really do respect your opinion on this, I’m beginning to tire of all this nay saying and fear mongering for a product that is still 6 months in the future.
I just chose your blog to vent on this… sorry, I have no wish to offend.
And yes, I totally concede in advance that I am in the pro 4e camp… only I try to be moderate about it.
However, my business sense is telling me that now is the time to get new games out, while the people who are in the naysaying camp are ripe for new things. While the market will remain mostly D&D for the foresseable future, some of the D&D players will move away (as it happens in all changes).
So when’s your game coming out?
Peace out freind, we’ll see how it turns out….
ChattyDm’s last blog post..New Search feature being playtested
Phil,
First off, I am not in the last bit offended, though I certainly appreciate your tact and concern about that.
Second, I am going to buy 4e. The first round of the core books will definitely be added to my library, no question. I reserve all my judgments about the game until I’ve bought it, read it, and played it. At this time, I am neither for nor against 4e.
What I AM against is the way that Wizards has handled the entire affair, as you say it’s been a PR nightmare all around.
What I mention in this article are the effects I think this will have on the market, several of which it seems you agree with.
I do believe that some large companies will shell out the money, Necromancer and Paizo have already committed to doing so, and I’m sure others will as well. But I’m also pretty confident that several others won’t, and worse yet some things like Iron Heroes might disappear forever thanks to the new OGL.
I have no doubt Wizards will maintain its dominance of the industry, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their market share dropped a few percentage points.
I’ll admit I have chronic problems with the way Wizards handles somethings… but I do not have problems with Wizards or their products. When I complain about something they do, my complaint is intended to be limited to that one thing, and not an over-all judgment. None was certainly meant to be directed towards either Wizards or the quality of 4e in this case.
As to the release date of my game, I’m preparing the manuscript to show to Diamond Publishing, the date will largely depend on what they say. With luck, the game will be available in the next few months.
Points well received and better understood.
Also, good point on Iron Heroes, although there is a feeling that Mearls will inject what some of the things de designed in IH (power without gear, more mobile combat, etc) into 4e.
I do feel bad for Adam Wilson and Fiery Dragon Production for that…
ChattyDm’s last blog post..New Search feature being playtested
I weighed in on this whole thing on my site too, but with a different angle.
I think some of your points are spot on. This will mean fewer d20 products, and creates an awkward situation for us homebrewers who just want to put our own stuff online. While the $5k is a decent idea towards setting up standards of quality, some of the bigger companies definitely put out sub-par offerings, and a buy-in wouldn’t have changed that the last go-round.
I am unwilling to pronounce it doom and gloom for WotC or D&D in any sense, though I have the feeling that 4e-detractors will blame the mechanics and flavor of the game on any decline rather than poor business decisions.
Overall, I’m a bit sad that Wizards has stepped back from Open Source philosophies and clamped down on innovation, while simultaneously very looking forward to the changes 4e will bring to D&D.
Dave T. Game’s last blog post..Review: Freezepop “Future Future Future Perfect”
“I have the feeling that 4e-detractors will blame the mechanics and flavor of the game on any decline rather than poor business decisions.”
You may well be right, though I’ve always considered the flavor of DnD to be one of the easiest things to change about it. Greyhawk, Ravenloft, and Birthright. Three settings for the same game where the theme and flavor goes from high fantasy to survival horror to political intrigue and military tactics.
I will admit that some of the mechanics have me a little annoyed… the lack of save-or-die effects means that Power Word Kill will be removed from the game, a true staple of the game to me. That’s the same kind of punch to the gut I experienced when I looked through the 3.5 Monster Manual for the first time and realized that Gibberlings didn’t make it to the new edition.
I would also like to disagree with this post. I know of at least one small company already planning to purchase the OGL kit, and I don’t think an inability to develop for free before 2009 will substantial set back adoption of the system.
Players already know quite a bit how it functions, and will know more even before the core release. From all angles it looks like a good system, and hell, upgrading your core to 4E will be free, the same way 3E and 3.5E were free. I play using the SRD available online, and share a small pool of source books (such as the excellent Oriental Adventures, which was actually written for 3.0) with my friends.
if the D&D online product is any good, I think WotC will be in a strong position. 4E is shaping up to be a good system, and if they make it substantially easier for new players to DM D&D, they’ll definitely lock in more gamers.
I predict a year and a half from now D&D will occupy about the same space it has for the last decade or so: the game to play, the one everyone knows. Other products come and go, but I don’t think 4E is going to reduce D&D’s importance.
“I will admit that some of the mechanics have me a little annoyed… the lack of save-or-die effects means that Power Word Kill will be removed from the game, a true staple of the game to me.”
For a long time game hacker like yourself, this shouldn’t be a problem. I’m on the opposite end, I know my games becomes substantially less fun when instant save or die effects are in use by enemies.
To alter it, I’ve simply changed how many rounds something like an instant death effect, or petrification, etc, take effect in. To give the players a chance, I’ve used a one round buffer where the character drops to -9 and can be saved through a strong healing effect, before dying on the next turn.
D&D is pretty easy to alter to one’s taste, and if your group trusts you, they won’t rebel unless they’re not having fun (in which case, something is wrong anyway). These detailed changes to spells, monsters, etc only affect new players who feel compelled to stick to the books. It’s the same reason I’m not upset the new default character generation method is point buy: it doesn’t affect me or those I play with.
“upgrading your core to 4E will be free, the same way 3E and 3.5E were free. I play using the SRD available online, and share a small pool of source books (such as the excellent Oriental Adventures, which was actually written for 3.0) with my friends.”
Unfortunately, that is NOT going to be the case with 4e. The relevant pull quotes (taken from ENWorld):
“The SRD will not be a replacement for the Player’s Handbook.”
“It will not be a stripped down core rulebook (PHB) that largely allows you to play D&D.”
Dave T. Game’s last blog post..Review: Freezepop “Future Future Future Perfect”
” “upgrading your core to 4E will be free, the same way 3E and 3.5E were free. I play using the SRD available online, and share a small pool of source books (such as the excellent Oriental Adventures, which was actually written for 3.0) with my friends.”
Unfortunately, that is NOT going to be the case with 4e. The relevant pull quotes (taken from ENWorld):
“The SRD will not be a replacement for the Player’s Handbook.”
“It will not be a stripped down core rulebook (PHB) that largely allows you to play D&D.” ”
Exactly… and this is one of my problems with how they are handling it.
It seems like people might be assuming I’m predicting the end of DnD or a drastic drop-off in sales. Of course this isn’t, and couldn’t be, the end of DnD and I never meant to suggest that it might be. Simply that Wizards IS losing customers from the way they are handling things, and that this has further consequences, as does the lack of such widespread initial development of third-party material.
I think this is similar to gaming consoles. A console is released and doesn’t have any big exclusive titles or a lot of support for titles people really want. As a result, less people buy the console when it’s released and for sometime afterwards. As a result, fewer titles, especially exclusive ones, become available for it. I believe this is part of what’s happened to the PS3, and what the Wii is miraculously escaping.
Do you know what essential elements will be missing from the 4E SRD?
They haven’t said specifically, but the gist of what we have been told is that the SRD will be largely an index of pages and passages in the books which are included as part of the OGL, and that the SRD will be a reference more for publishers than for actual play usage.
Just an index? Then how is that an SRD? If it does not contain the rules of the system, it’s not an SRD? I can see not including, say, monsters, but the basic rules must be there? (Lot’s of question marks!)
“The 4e SRD will be a “reference document” for publishers working under the 4e OGL to know what content can be used in their own products. It will reference sections and passages from 4e D&D books and will also contain table/formating guidelines like the monster stat block to allow for consistency among products.
It will not be a stripped down core rulebook (PHB) that largely allows you to play D&D.”
Courtesy of ENworld:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3982278#post3982278
and Gleemax:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14775028&postcount=5
Ah - it you’re saying it strictly outlines the acceptable passages of rulebooks. Interesting, I hope this does not end up being the case.
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of third parties to D&D’s popularity.
I strongly suspect that they only matter to people that really, really care about RPGs and get involved in the community. For the vast majority of people, I think they’re happy to just buy Wizards books.
Heck, I don’t even buy third party books precisely because of the product glut that followed 3rd edition. I know things have gotten better, but you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. I buy the occasional PDF, but that’s usually only things that are cheap enough to be impulse buys that I won’t care if I waste the money.
Asmor’s last blog post..Races with Flavor: The Kamit
Asmor,
What do you consider third party, precisely?
And what games, other than DnD, do you play?
Third party, with respect to Dungeons & Dragons, is anything not published by Wizards of the Coast.
I actually don’t even play D&D right now, I’m on hiatus until 4th edition comes out. Most recently, I’ve run Savage Worlds, but it’s been a while since my two attempts at a campaign in that system fizzled out. I’ve played the various games using White Wolf’s system, Mutans & Masterminds, d20 Modern, WFRP 2e… and a couple others not worth mentioning.
Asmor’s last blog post..Races with Flavor: The Kamit
I just wanted to make sure we were using the same definition… I’ve had plenty of online discussions go some length only to find out later that we had all used slightly different definitions but never been aware of the differences.
Things like d20 Modern seem less likely to flourish under the new OGL, unless the approach is now somehow far more universal and inclusive, there is too much lacking from d20 Modern to allow it to work as a cohesive game that will let people do what they want. With restrictions on the licenses, things like d20 Mafia are less likely to be created - and THAT will hurt the over-all sales of the first party products, though not as noticeably with DnD itself.
I think that you’re right - the vast majority of people ARE happy to just buy Wizards’ books. But the community that isn’t? It’s not to be discounted, and a lot of that community makes up the lifetime RPG customer demographic.
I will admit that more of the games published under the license are done so through Wizards than I first believed. Dark Matter, for instance, is currently published through Wizards of the Coast, while I was under the impression that Alternity still held the license. Apologies if I botched the spelling of the company name.
So what will happen to games like Darwin’s World, which currently exist through the grace of the d20 license? They’ll be slower to move to the new system, if at all. For the majority of players, that won’t matter. But where it might matter in the long-run is the widespread acceptance of the system. With that lacking, Wizards will lose some customers.
And again, these numbers of lost customers aren’t particularly big. Let’s assume, conservatively, that the last dozen gaffs on the part of Wizards with 4e each cost them only one tenth of one percent of the game’s customer base. That’s still a net loss of more than 1%, which with Wizards’ numbers isn’t a small number of customers.
[…] chimed in on Critical Hits and Omnius’ blog about it. The debate rages on and will for some time and I don’t want to spend more time on […]