Shades of T$R!

[Ubiquitous]

I haven't paid much attention to the coming 4th edition but noticed a
couple preview books (which is being generous) -- for about $20 apiece!
Talk about deja vu!
A quick skimming confirmed I won't be switching.

Actually, T$R is only following the direction of their big Ha$-Bro.. If a
small company can make LOTS of money, Ha$bro thinks they can use
the small company to rape the consumer for an OBNOXIOUS amount
of money.... Thus dies the dream of an Open Gaming License to encourage
the little people into creating a great game! Guess 3.5 and the OGL will
have to do until they decide to sue for the right to close the OGL. hehehe
Of course they will have to sue themselves and will settle out of court!

Will WotC be continuing OGL in the newest edition?

[Dale Friesen]

Post by Ubiquitous
Will WotC be continuing OGL in the newest edition?

The new edition will be released under the GSL (Game System License). We
don't know yet what it's like, other than the fact that it's not just a
new version of the OGL.

--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books.
Dale Friesen, Sysadmin
Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada
***@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca

[Del Rio]

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Ubiquitous
Will WotC be continuing OGL in the newest edition?

The new edition will be released under the GSL (Game System License). We
don't know yet what it's like, other than the fact that it's not just a
new version of the OGL.

So, the idea of the OGL was "let's get everyone playing d20,
and then they'll naturally gravitate to D&D because we're the
premium d20 game". Like the music industry, I expect Hasbro to
fail to grasp how giving something away can help them make
money. I expect them to make a shortsighted grab at
re-establishing their intellectual property rights. I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create
stuff that requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm
betting that the only version of the 4e rules that anyone will
be allowed to publish will be in the D&D 4e core books, thus
making them requirements in order to play any game that is
based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

[Tetsubo]

Post by Del Rio

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Ubiquitous
Will WotC be continuing OGL in the newest edition?

The new edition will be released under the GSL (Game System License). We
don't know yet what it's like, other than the fact that it's not just a
new version of the OGL.

So, the idea of the OGL was "let's get everyone playing d20,
and then they'll naturally gravitate to D&D because we're the
premium d20 game". Like the music industry, I expect Hasbro to
fail to grasp how giving something away can help them make
money. I expect them to make a shortsighted grab at
re-establishing their intellectual property rights. I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create
stuff that requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm
betting that the only version of the 4e rules that anyone will
be allowed to publish will be in the D&D 4e core books, thus
making them requirements in order to play any game that is
based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

But we still have the 3.5 OGL. Hasbro can go screw...

[Dale Friesen]

Post by Del Rio
I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create
stuff that requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm
betting that the only version of the 4e rules that anyone will
be allowed to publish will be in the D&D 4e core books, thus
making them requirements in order to play any game that is
based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

Yes, I expect that to be the case, too.

But is that so unreasonable? It's costing them a bunch of money to
create 4e, so if people are going to be playing it then why shouldn't
Hasbro require them to use the Hasbro edition of the rules?

After all, there's nothing stopping people from writing their own
stand-alone games, or even from continuing to publish games based on D&D
3.5 under the OGL.

Personally, I expect I'll be playing 3.5 games for some time to come,
but I don't begrudge Hasbro the right to change the rules for a separate
game. We don't know yet what the changes to the license will be, but if
I don't like them then I just won't play the new game much.

--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books.
Dale Friesen, Sysadmin
Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada
***@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca

[tussock]

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Del Rio
I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create stuff that
requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm betting that the only
version of the 4e rules that anyone will be allowed to publish will be
in the D&D 4e core books, thus making them requirements in order to
play any game that is based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

Yes, I expect that to be the case, too.
But is that so unreasonable?

Yes. It's bad for their customers, bad for RPG writers, bad for the
game stores, bad for the popularity of the hobby, and very bad for them
in the long run due to all those factors.

Post by Dale Friesen
It's costing them a bunch of money to create 4e, so if people are going
to be playing it then why shouldn't Hasbro require them to use the
Hasbro edition of the rules?

Because 90% of a million people is less than 50% of two million. They
recover their costs best of all by growing the hobby, rather than seeking
to monopolise the tiny group of people that play it now.

It'll sell less miniatures if there's no 3rd party flood of content
for it, they'll have nothing to benchmark themselves against, and the
next Mike Mearls might never come to be.

[Tetsubo]

Post by tussock

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Del Rio
I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create stuff that
requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm betting that the only
version of the 4e rules that anyone will be allowed to publish will be
in the D&D 4e core books, thus making them requirements in order to
play any game that is based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

Yes, I expect that to be the case, too.
But is that so unreasonable?

Yes. It's bad for their customers, bad for RPG writers, bad for the
game stores, bad for the popularity of the hobby, and very bad for them
in the long run due to all those factors.

Post by Dale Friesen
It's costing them a bunch of money to create 4e, so if people are going
to be playing it then why shouldn't Hasbro require them to use the
Hasbro edition of the rules?

Because 90% of a million people is less than 50% of two million. They
recover their costs best of all by growing the hobby, rather than seeking
to monopolise the tiny group of people that play it now.
It'll sell less miniatures if there's no 3rd party flood of content
for it, they'll have nothing to benchmark themselves against, and the
next Mike Mearls might never come to be.

Another shining example of WotC short sighted planning. I never thought
I would say this, but I hope 4E goes down like the Bismarck. I hate what
Hasbro has done to my favorite game.

[tussock]

Post by Tetsubo
Another shining example of WotC short sighted planning. I never
thought I would say this, but I hope 4E goes down like the Bismarck. I
hate what Hasbro has done to my favorite game.

Where I hope, ever so faintly, it sups like wine of the gods, causing
such love in mankind as to make war less common. I just take note of the
things they do that make such vain hopes spoil on the vine.

I don't suffer that it will be good, just mourn a little that it
might well have been better.

[Tetsubo]

Post by tussock

Post by Tetsubo
Another shining example of WotC short sighted planning. I never
thought I would say this, but I hope 4E goes down like the Bismarck. I
hate what Hasbro has done to my favorite game.

Where I hope, ever so faintly, it sups like wine of the gods, causing
such love in mankind as to make war less common. I just take note of the
things they do that make such vain hopes spoil on the vine.
I don't suffer that it will be good, just mourn a little that it
might well have been better.

I might join you in that hope. If I thought there was a reason for a
new edition. Other than Hasbro wanting more money. I don't want suits in
charge of my hobby. Heck, I don't have use for suits at all... Somewhere
in the process of acquiring an MBA, the human brain dies off.

[mcv]

Somewhere in the process of acquiring an MBA, the human brain dies off.

Maybe not the brain, but certainly the heart.

Good quote nonetheless.


mcv.

[My Conscience]

Post by mcv

Somewhere in the process of acquiring an MBA, the human brain dies off.

Maybe not the brain, but certainly the heart.
Good quote nonetheless.
mcv.

I have always favored the phrase "{blank} is as cold as a manager's heart."

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by tussock

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Del Rio
I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create stuff that
requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm betting that the only
version of the 4e rules that anyone will be allowed to publish will be
in the D&D 4e core books, thus making them requirements in order to
play any game that is based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

Yes, I expect that to be the case, too.
But is that so unreasonable?

Yes. It's bad for their customers, bad for RPG writers, bad for the
game stores, bad for the popularity of the hobby, and very bad for them
in the long run due to all those factors.

How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

[Ben Finney]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by tussock
Yes. It's bad for their customers, bad for RPG writers, bad for
the game stores, bad for the popularity of the hobby, and very bad
for them in the long run due to all those factors.

How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

The absence of networked computer games in people's homes.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by tussock
Yes. It's bad for their customers, bad for RPG writers, bad for
the game stores, bad for the popularity of the hobby, and very bad
for them in the long run due to all those factors.

How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

The absence of networked computer games in people's homes.

Call me when one of those actually has a decent resemblance to a real
RPG.

[Ben Finney]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and
the OGL in the first place?

The absence of networked computer games in people's homes.

Call me when one of those actually has a decent resemblance to a
real RPG.

The issue of "do such networked computer games appeal to people who
already know that they like RPGs" is far less relevant to Ed Chauvin's
question than "do such networked computer games capture the interest,
attention, time, and money of new people who would otherwise discover
RPGs".

[tussock]

How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the OGL
in the first place?

The vast majority of them, including the market leader TSR, *didn't*
survive. Really, as of y2k, pre OGL, how many RPG companies where still
pubishing for profit? Two?

[Ben Finney]

Post by tussock

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and
the OGL in the first place?

The vast majority of them, including the market leader TSR,
*didn't* survive. Really, as of y2k, pre OGL, how many RPG companies
where still pubishing for profit? Two?

Ed Chauvin asked about "the RPG hobby", which is not equal to "the
for-profit RPG industry".

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Mere moments before death, Ben Finney

Post by Ben Finney

Post by tussock

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and
the OGL in the first place?

The vast majority of them, including the market leader TSR,
*didn't* survive. Really, as of y2k, pre OGL, how many RPG companies
where still pubishing for profit? Two?

Ed Chauvin asked about "the RPG hobby", which is not equal to "the
for-profit RPG industry".

Thank you.

[tussock]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ben Finney

Post by tussock

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

The vast majority of them, including the market leader TSR,
*didn't* survive. Really, as of y2k, pre OGL, how many RPG companies
where still pubishing for profit? Two?

Ed Chauvin asked about "the RPG hobby", which is not equal to "the
for-profit RPG industry".

Thank you.

I'd suggest the number of folk making money off RPGs is strongly
influenced by the number of people participating in the hobby on a
regular basis.

I mean, I would've thought it obvious, but there it is anyway. IME,
AIUI, and from the very few publised studies, tabletop RPGing, stores
that provided for it, and RPG businesses were all in very serious decline
in the late 90's. 3e and the OGL played a big part in turning that
around, and not just for d20 games but for the hobby as a whole.

I may be completely mistaken, of course.

[Erol K. Bayburt]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

Piracy.
Erol K. Bayburt
***@comcast.net

[Ben Finney]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

Piracy.

Gamers were raiding seagoing vessels filled with RPG materials,
depriving the merchants of their goods, and committing violence to do
so? I doubt it.

Personally, I think it's more likely copyright infringement was
involved. Which has nothing to do with piracy, of course, because it's
neither violent nor does it deprive the merchant of the goods.

But I'm sure you knew that.

[Keith Davies]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
How did the RPG hobby ever survive for 30 years before WotC and the
OGL in the first place?

Piracy.

Gamers were raiding seagoing vessels filled with RPG materials,
depriving the merchants of their goods, and committing violence to do
so? I doubt it.
Personally, I think it's more likely copyright infringement was
involved. Which has nothing to do with piracy, of course, because it's
neither violent nor does it deprive the merchant of the goods.

Come to that, copyright infringement has only gotten *really* easy in
the last ten years or so. Up to that point it was a lot more work.

Considering D&D3.x came out almost (for rounded values of 'almost') ten
years ago, I think copyright infringement would've been only a *small*
part of the 'hobby', compared to now.

And 'now', things have been fairly decent. At least until 4e was
announced and everything dried up. I haven't bought a 'new' supplement
in months. I've been having a good time filling in my gaps with stuff
publishers and FLGSs are trying to clear, though.


Keith

[Del Rio]

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Del Rio
I bet the
idea behind the GSL is going to be, "let's let people create
stuff that requires you to own D&D 4e books to play." I'm
betting that the only version of the 4e rules that anyone will
be allowed to publish will be in the D&D 4e core books, thus
making them requirements in order to play any game that is
based on the 4e equivalent of d20.

Yes, I expect that to be the case, too.
But is that so unreasonable?

I think it's shortsighted.

Post by Dale Friesen
It's costing them a bunch of money to
create 4e, so if people are going to be playing it then why shouldn't
Hasbro require them to use the Hasbro edition of the rules?

I still feel there's an analogy with the music industry.
Trying to control these things more tightly doesn't expand your
potential market, it shrinks it. And that's not even to mention
the bad feeling it generates.

[Dale Friesen]

Post by Del Rio

Post by Dale Friesen
But is that so unreasonable?

I think it's shortsighted.

I think so too.

--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books.
Dale Friesen, Sysadmin
Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada
***@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca

[Steve]

Post by Dale Friesen
Personally, I expect I'll be playing 3.5 games for some time to come,
but I don't begrudge Hasbro the right to change the rules for a separate
game. We don't know yet what the changes to the license will be, but if
I don't like them then I just won't play the new game mu

I'm still playing 1st edition....

[Keith Davies]

Post by Dale Friesen

Post by Ubiquitous
Will WotC be continuing OGL in the newest edition?

The new edition will be released under the GSL (Game System License). We
don't know yet what it's like, other than the fact that it's not just a
new version of the OGL.

Heya Dale. How goes?

It seems, from the license announcement and various commentary, that the
4e 'GSL' is intended and designed to be as WotC had expected the 3e OGL
to work. You get to write and publish using the rules presented in the
4e books, but you are expected to limit yourself to settings, modules,
and maybe rules supplements -- the relatively unprofitable bits. I've
read an analysis that the OGL wasn't 'intended' to do what it did, make
it possible for anyone and his dog to put together an SRD document and
republish it, nor to heavily modify the rules for other purposes, and
otherwise make profitable use of the OGC.

I don't know how accurate that analysis is, but I can certainly believe
WotC didn't expect things to go the way they did, and that Hasbro wants
to 'fix' that.


Keith

[Dale Friesen]

Post by Keith Davies
Heya Dale. How goes?

Hey Keith. Things are good, thanks!

Post by Keith Davies
It seems, from the license announcement and various commentary, that the
4e 'GSL' is intended and designed to be as WotC had expected the 3e OGL
to work. You get to write and publish using the rules presented in the
4e books, but you are expected to limit yourself to settings, modules,
and maybe rules supplements -- the relatively unprofitable bits.

That seems to be a reasonable expectation. Personally, I don't have a
problem with Hasbro saying, "We just spend a tonne of money getting
people to write these books, so if you want to play this game then
please buy a copy of it first." I'm not thrilled with the way that the
DDI seems to be shaping up, but fortunately it doesn't seem to be
necessary in order to enjoy the game.

Post by Keith Davies
I don't know how accurate that analysis is, but I can certainly believe
WotC didn't expect things to go the way they did, and that Hasbro wants
to 'fix' that.

Good call. I expect that if WotC had been part of Hasbro back then then
they wouldn't have come out with quite so permissive a license.

Interesting times!

--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Bolen Books.
Dale Friesen, Sysadmin
Bolen Books, Inc Victoria, BC Canada
***@bolen.bc.ca http://www.bolen.bc.ca

[Keith Davies]

Post by Keith Davies
It seems, from the license announcement and various commentary, that
the 4e 'GSL' is intended and designed to be as WotC had expected the
3e OGL to work. You get to write and publish using the rules
presented in the 4e books, but you are expected to limit yourself to
settings, modules, and maybe rules supplements -- the relatively
unprofitable bits. I've read an analysis that the OGL wasn't
'intended' to do what it did, make it possible for anyone and his dog
to put together an SRD document and republish it, nor to heavily
modify the rules for other purposes, and otherwise make profitable
use of the OGC.
I don't know how accurate that analysis is,

Completely inaccurate. Ryan Dancey was actually saying the EXACT
opposite of that in 2000. And so did the OGL FAQs.

That jives with what I remember from back when. Now that I think of it,
it seems (almost?) all the "they didn't mean it that way!" commentary
has come up since 4e was announced.

At least, I don't remember seeing it before. But then, I wasn't paying
much attention, either.


Keith

[tussock]

Post by Keith Davies

Post by Keith Davies
It seems, from the license announcement and various commentary, that
the 4e 'GSL' is intended and designed to be as WotC had expected the
3e OGL to work. You get to write and publish using the rules
presented in the 4e books, but you are expected to limit yourself to
settings, modules, and maybe rules supplements -- the relatively
unprofitable bits. I've read an analysis that the OGL wasn't
'intended' to do what it did, make it possible for anyone and his dog
to put together an SRD document and republish it, nor to heavily
modify the rules for other purposes, and otherwise make profitable use
of the OGC.
I don't know how accurate that analysis is,

Completely inaccurate. Ryan Dancey was actually saying the EXACT
opposite of that in 2000. And so did the OGL FAQs.

That jives with what I remember from back when. Now that I think of it,
it seems (almost?) all the "they didn't mean it that way!" commentary
has come up since 4e was announced.

Stealth marketing no doubt. Anonymous "they're not screwing the
industry now, just fixing up how accidently harmful to the industry they
were last time, everyone's totally cool with paying a few grand for the
new heavy restrictions on their contributions to the hobby."

Post by Keith Davies
At least, I don't remember seeing it before. But then, I wasn't paying
much attention, either.

The SRD seemed to be deliberately unmentioned by WotC since Unearthed
Arcana, several links on their web pages to it got removed, the original
site never got updated, etc, etc.

[Keith Davies]

Post by tussock

Post by Keith Davies

Post by Keith Davies
It seems, from the license announcement and various commentary,
that the 4e 'GSL' is intended and designed to be as WotC had
expected the 3e OGL to work. You get to write and publish using
the rules presented in the 4e books, but you are expected to limit
yourself to settings, modules, and maybe rules supplements -- the
relatively unprofitable bits. I've read an analysis that the OGL
wasn't 'intended' to do what it did, make it possible for anyone
and his dog to put together an SRD document and republish it, nor
to heavily modify the rules for other purposes, and otherwise make
profitable use of the OGC.
I don't know how accurate that analysis is,

Completely inaccurate. Ryan Dancey was actually saying the EXACT
opposite of that in 2000. And so did the OGL FAQs.

That jives with what I remember from back when. Now that I think of
it, it seems (almost?) all the "they didn't mean it that way!"
commentary has come up since 4e was announced.

Stealth marketing no doubt. Anonymous "they're not screwing the
industry now, just fixing up how accidently harmful to the industry
they were last time, everyone's totally cool with paying a few grand
for the new heavy restrictions on their contributions to the hobby."

I can believe the analysis presented (they made a mistake, in
hindsight), but I also definitely remember Dancey's position and the
announcements at the time that it was to be very much modeled after OSS.

That They (y'know, *them*... in this case perhaps Hasbro) may have
changed their mind at a corporate level is certainly credible.

Post by tussock

Post by Keith Davies
At least, I don't remember seeing it before. But then, I wasn't paying
much attention, either.

The SRD seemed to be deliberately unmentioned by WotC since Unearthed
Arcana, several links on their web pages to it got removed, the
original site never got updated, etc, etc.

MM II was the only WotC product with third-party OGC in it. I don't
remember publishing order, but I do remember that the RSRD had XPH
folded into it after the fact... and nothing since. UA was not included
in the RSRD, IMO correctly (it was a bunch of ideas just thrown out
there, and not really intended, I think, for automatic integration with
RSRD).


Keith

[gleichman]

I've watched the 4E news with passing interest. I don't buy their
products and have no plans to buy their products, so it's hard for me
to get worked up over them.

I do however think that people are over-reacting on a number of
points, and the change in OGL is one. Frankly I thought at the time
that the OGL got out of hand with games being labeled as D20 that had
no real reason to be so labeled. Rather than offering a common
mechanical experience to the buy, the label basically did little at
times except to piggy back upon WotC shelf space. A more firm
agreement would hopefully prevent that.

[tussock]

I do however think that people are over-reacting on a number of points,
and the change in OGL is one. Frankly I thought at the time that the OGL
got out of hand with games being labeled as D20 that had no real reason
to be so labeled. Rather than offering a common mechanical experience to
the buy, the label basically did little at times except to piggy back
upon WotC shelf space.

d20Modern and Star Wars Saga edition are both labelled by WotC as
d20, as were all the optional rules variants in Unearth Arcana, or 4e
style stuff like the Book of Nine Swords: very few 3rd party d20 books
went further away from core DnD than those did, and most simply pushed
WotC to better respond to customer demand.

A more firm agreement would hopefully prevent that.

It will also prevent the next Iron Heroes or Mutants and Masterminds
True20 type, which is a great shame for the hobby, IMO.

[gleichman]

    d20Modern and Star Wars Saga edition are both labelled by WotC as
d20, as were all the optional rules variants in Unearth Arcana, or 4e
style stuff like the Book of Nine Swords: very few 3rd party d20 books
went further away from core DnD than those did, and most simply pushed
WotC to better respond to customer demand.

All those came after some serious divergence from previous non-WotC
D20 games.

With the cat out of the bag, WotC had a simple choice- either join
them and tap the same market (and use it for future R&D as rumored
elements of 4E show), or let others control the possible future of
their market. It shouldn't be a suprise that they selected the former
any more than it should be a surpise that they don't want to repeat
that loss of control.

[tussock]

    d20Modern and Star Wars Saga edition are both labelled by WotC as
d20, as were all the optional rules variants in Unearth Arcana, or 4e
style stuff like the Book of Nine Swords: very few 3rd party d20 books
went further away from core DnD than those did, and most simply pushed
WotC to better respond to customer demand.

All those came after some serious divergence from previous non-WotC D20
games.

Hmm, perhaps. The bulk of 3rd-party d20 stuff throughout has been
pretty conservative design, but there was the occaisional oddball.

With the cat out of the bag, WotC had a simple choice- either join them
and tap the same market (and use it for future R&D as rumored elements
of 4E show), or let others control the possible future of their market.

It's not "their" market, nor can it be well served by a single game
model due to the differing desires of the end users. The "direction" of
the market is to diversity and rules ploliferation, periodically folding
the best new ideas back into the old stalwarts. Always has been.

It shouldn't be a suprise that they selected the former any more than it
should be a surpise that they don't want to repeat that loss of control.

Bah humbug. /If/ they successfully prevent people doing interesting
things with compatable material, people will instead do interesting
things with /incompatable/ material, which will further segment the
community and make it harder to fold back the best new ideas into 5th
edition DnD.

The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.

[Tetsubo]

Post by tussock

Post by tussock
d20Modern and Star Wars Saga edition are both labelled by WotC as
d20, as were all the optional rules variants in Unearth Arcana, or 4e
style stuff like the Book of Nine Swords: very few 3rd party d20 books
went further away from core DnD than those did, and most simply pushed
WotC to better respond to customer demand.

All those came after some serious divergence from previous non-WotC D20
games.

Hmm, perhaps. The bulk of 3rd-party d20 stuff throughout has been
pretty conservative design, but there was the occaisional oddball.

With the cat out of the bag, WotC had a simple choice- either join them
and tap the same market (and use it for future R&D as rumored elements
of 4E show), or let others control the possible future of their market.

It's not "their" market, nor can it be well served by a single game
model due to the differing desires of the end users. The "direction" of
the market is to diversity and rules ploliferation, periodically folding
the best new ideas back into the old stalwarts. Always has been.

It shouldn't be a suprise that they selected the former any more than it
should be a surpise that they don't want to repeat that loss of control.

Bah humbug. /If/ they successfully prevent people doing interesting
things with compatable material, people will instead do interesting
things with /incompatable/ material, which will further segment the
community and make it harder to fold back the best new ideas into 5th
edition DnD.
The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.

Sadly that simple idea is completely lost on American business managers...

[gleichman]

    The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't care what WotC does because
to the end user it flatly doesn't matter. But yet you're here claiming
the sky is falling because WotC is following standard business
practice instead of chasing open content butterflies.

Very amusing.

WotC will make their changes, D&D will continue to hold the lion's
share of a shrinking market. The sky won't fall, but under no
conditions will the hobby as you now know it grow significantly for
the long term.

[Ben Finney]

Post by gleichman

    The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't care what WotC does because
to the end user it flatly doesn't matter.

That doesn't follow. Stating that "the harder they squeeze, the more
will slip through their fingers" only points out that they encourage
more to escape by squeezing. It doesn't say anything about whether
we'd be better off if they didn't squeeze at all.

[gleichman]

Post by Ben Finney

Post by Ben Finney
That doesn't follow. Stating that "the harder they squeeze, the more

will slip through their fingers" only points out that they encourage
more to escape by squeezing. It doesn't say anything about whether
we'd be better off if they didn't squeeze at all.

Read his paragraph before that, where he predicts that they will move to
other non-WotC systems, etc. etc. and tell me again that it doesn't follow.

[Ben Finney]

Post by gleichman

    The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't care what WotC does because
to the end user it flatly doesn't matter.

This claim, that "the harder they squeeze, the more will slip through
their fingers", doesn't lead to what you say above.

Post by gleichman

Post by Ben Finney
That doesn't follow. Stating that "the harder they squeeze, the more

will slip through their fingers" only points out that they encourage
more to escape by squeezing. It doesn't say anything about whether
we'd be better off if they didn't squeeze at all.

Read his paragraph before that, where he predicts that they will move
to other non-WotC systems, etc. etc. and tell me again that it doesn't
follow.

I don't see how "end users care enough to move to non-WotC systems" is
compatible with your claim that "in that case, to the end user it
flatly doesn't matter".

I understand what he's saying, and I think he's claiming quite the
opposite of what you conclude.

[gleichman]

Post by Ben Finney
I don't see how "end users care enough to move to non-WotC systems" is
compatible with your claim that "in that case, to the end user it
flatly doesn't matter".

You don't see because you flatly refuse to look.

[tussock]

    The harder they squeeze, the more will slip through their fingers.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't care what WotC does because to
the end user it flatly doesn't matter.

Market segmentation hurts as each product has a smaller customer
base, interoperability helps as every product supports every other
product. This _obviously_ matters.

But yet you're here claiming the sky is falling because WotC is
following standard business practice instead of chasing open content
butterflies.

Whose standard's that, dude? Feel free to pry my OS and newsclient
out of the headers, I can assure you they're the most functional I've
found.
Through what medium are we communicating, and how's it doing?

Very amusing.

See, I agree they'll almost certainly do fine, being the 500lb
gorilla means they can sit where they want. I am however claiming that
they are missing the chance to do very much better.

WotC will make their changes, D&D will continue to hold the lion's share
of a shrinking market. The sky won't fall, but under no conditions will
the hobby as you now know it grow significantly for the long term.

Very amusing. You know they're getting it wrong, you just refuse to
acknowledge that there are alternatives that might do better, because
it's "standard practice" to ignore them.

Ignoring the rather massive growth of this little open standards
based interoperable user-created thing ycleped betwixtubes. Growth, much.

[gleichman]

    Market segmentation hurts as each product has a smaller customer
base, interoperability helps as every product supports every other
product. This _obviously_ matters.

The truth is that we're a large (and in the west) rich world. We can
easily support market segmentation; in fact the market demands it and
is improved by it. WotC tried it your way and have decided that it's
in its own interest to pass on it in the future. Given that they have
all the financial facts at their finger tips and you don't, I'll take
their word over yours and any number of Internet fanboys.

If you think they're wrong, then do it yourself and toss WotC into the
dustbin. Proof is in the pudding, etc. etc. If there is significant
growth there, it's for the taking.

I on the other hand think their decision is reasoned and likely wise.
There is no significant growth to be had, just a small market that
WotC will be making the best of.

[tussock]

Post by gleichman

    Market segmentation hurts as each product has a smaller customer
base, interoperability helps as every product supports every other
product. This _obviously_ matters.

The truth is that we're a large (and in the west) rich world. We can
easily support market segmentation; in fact the market demands it and is
improved by it.

Bullshit. The market demands and thrives on *choice*, not
segmentation. It is improved by interoperability, as that improves the
opportunity for genuine choice, which is why any securely dominant
business is scared shitless of it.

Post by gleichman
WotC tried it your way

Half-assed at best, never truely going open, never pushing the new
frontiers, still attacking the support work of their fanbase. They *fear*
genuine competition and consumer choice.

Post by gleichman
and have decided that it's in its own interest to pass on it in the
future. Given that they have all the financial facts at their finger
tips and you don't, I'll take their word over yours and any number of
Internet fanboys.

Hasbro? Finances? What, are you kidding? Did you note I'm talking
about things that are beyond the balance sheet?

GROWING THE HOBBY.

Just incase you missed it.

Post by gleichman
If you think they're wrong, then do it yourself and toss WotC into the
dustbin. Proof is in the pudding, etc. etc. If there is significant
growth there, it's for the taking.

Sure, like I have the capital to hire the talent away for a few
years, or a stonking brand name like that to work off. As I've plainly
said, *they* could do better, and it doesn't mean anyone else has the
potential to.

Post by gleichman
I on the other hand think their decision is reasoned and likely wise.
There is no significant growth to be had, just a small market that WotC
will be making the best of.

IBM thought the world wouldn't need many computers.
Bill Gates thought PCs wouldn't do much with the internet.

There's huge growth, everywhere, for everyone. You've just got to be
better than the other guy so you can kill him and take his stuff
(excusing the DnDism).

Have you seen TV lately? That's the competition, and it's *crap*.

[gleichman]

"tussock" <***@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...

Whatever tussock, I've ran out of interest and time. I completely disagree
and consider you a foolish daydreamer with no grasp of reality or business
sense, but sadly no shortage of opinion.

You may end the thread however you wish. I have more interesting walls to
speak to.

[gleichman]

    It will also prevent the next Iron Heroes or Mutants and Masterminds
True20 type, which is a great shame for the hobby, IMO.

Different subject, so I'll put this in a different post.

Seriously, it doesn't really matter what your or my opinion on what a
shame that would be (and we differ significantly on that matter). From
the WotC PoV it was horrid as their marketing and R&D enriched others
without a solid payback to their brand due to the fact that they were
effectively different games. They may as well been operating as a
charity, and WotC isn't a charity.

The best return for an open agreement from the WotC PoV is to offer
development of lower print run products to smaller companies with less
overhead. This allows WotC to gain the greatest return for investment,
enables smaller companies to turn a profit, *and* builds a larger on
shelf selection/space for their product line.

Believe it or not, this is also what's best for you as the buyer.

[tussock]

    It will also prevent the next Iron Heroes or Mutants and
Masterminds True20 type, which is a great shame for the hobby, IMO.

<snip>

From the WotC PoV it was horrid as their marketing and R&D enriched
others without a solid payback to their brand due to the fact that they
were effectively different games. They may as well been operating as a
charity, and WotC isn't a charity.

Rubbish. Iron Heroes was a pretty light seller that most active users
incorperated into their DnD games, played with WotC books. It alerted
WotC to a designer that's already helped their sales and is a popular
(internally and externally) member of the 4e design team.

Other stuff showed them were core d20 was weak, influencing the
design of later WotC suppliments.

The best return for an open agreement from the WotC PoV is to offer
development of lower print run products to smaller companies with less
overhead. This allows WotC to gain the greatest return for investment,
enables smaller companies to turn a profit, *and* builds a larger on
shelf selection/space for their product line.
Believe it or not, this is also what's best for you as the buyer.

Argument from false premise. The best return for WotC is to grow the
hobby, end of story. The best way for an open agreement to do that is to
improve the basic structures of play.

Trying to prevent 3rd party computer aids (as SJGames and most others
also do) is another way they're keeping the hobby down. People want to
provide their users with free improvements to the hobby, allowing more
people to participate, *growing the hobby*, and still the suits can't see
the woods for the trees.