Open Game License and the d20 System

[JohnTaber]

Hi Derek,

I totally agree the problem is that these folks don't know Hero...thus in their minds it is more like...

Why drive a Honda when you can drive a Toyota?

To the unenlightened gamer (i.e. those who do not worship Hero as the best RPG system on the planet) it is hard to explain the benefits.

Hi Chris,

I guess I don't understand why d20 is not a system? Don't they all point to the PHB/DMG for the basic rules (i.e. classes, levels, alignments, etc)?

[JohnTaber]

Still, though, Hero works extremely well with its current system. Let others attempt to make d20 games and let the customers be the judges.

This is where the rubber hits the road...nice close...

[Monolith]

Originally posted by archer
Every d20 product sold by a third party is another book that the customer will have to buy from WotC.

Not necessarily true. I am fairly sure that gamers are not picking up Scarred Lands and saying: "Gee, I guess I need to buy a Player's Handbook." I think most d20 gamers own a Player's Handbook and are picking up Scarred Lands.

The number of gamers brought to D&D (the Player's Handbook) from licensees are probably not even 1% of the total market. D20 licensed products are selling to the established D&D fans, not bringing non-gamers into the fold.

While the d20/OGL has created opportunity for other companies in the RPG industry, every d20 book produced by White Wolf, or Mongoose, or Green Ronin is a book that WotC will never make a cent of profit on because it is established D&D fans buying that material. Before the d20/OGL WotC had a monopoly, now they are a near minority in the d20/OGL supplement industry.

[Peregrine]

According to Ryan Dancey (sp?), who came up with the idea, the whole point of the d20/OGL concept was to drive sales of the D&D PLayers Handbook. That's it in a nutshell.

[allen]

Originally posted by Monolith
Before the d20/OGL WotC had a monopoly, now they are a near minority in the d20/OGL supplement industry.

WotC may be a minority if you judge by number of products published per month, but I don't think they are using total sales as the criteria...

This is based on a conversation I had with a d20 publisher (I stress 'conversation' -- no hard numbers to back it up)... a third party publisher is lucky to sell 10k copies of a product; WotC expects to sell 100k of a product.

I don't think d20/OGL has been bad for WotC. Just the opposite in fact. For example... Adventures/modules don't sell well. That's pretty much axiomatic in the gaming industry. But for a system to appeal to gamers, especially new gamers, it needs published adventures. Modules teach new gamers how to put together an adventure using the game system; they help experienced gamers (meaning older gamers with jobs and families and whatever) save time by providing ready-made framework for a game session(s). Basically, they keep a game system robust and broaden its appeal. d20/OGL means D&D has adventures, yet WotC doesn't have to take a loss on publishing adventures. Win-win situation.

And that's just one benefit of d20/OGL; there are others, but I think the one above is probably the most obvious and the least subject to debate -- even if you, personally, don't use/like published modules, the advantages are still applicable and obvious when viewing the market as a whole.

As for its effects on the market, and position as a monopoly...

d20/OGL is predicated on network externalities... network externalities are often illustrated by railroads and phone lines (at least they were in I was in school). For example, you're a manufacturer who uses railroads to ship goods. You have to choose a carrier. You don't want to mess with multiple carriers; it increases costs. You choose the railroad that connects the most locations. For example, you have to choose a phone company. You choose the phone company with the lines that connects the most places. In both instances, the value was based on the network offered.

Strange that railroads and phone companies have histories of monopolistic markets, and that this would become the WotC business model for D&D?

When WotC says: multiple rule systems are harmful to the market, this translates to, the gaming market is a natural monopoly. Of course, they don't use the word 'monopoly' because it has negative connotations with the American public; but that's the jist of it.

So anyway, for me, that's the crux of the argument... is the gaming industry a market where only a monopoly can profit; or is WotC attempting to create a monopoly thru OGL and the 'network tap' d20. And, to be honest, I think its a thorny issue beyond my abilities to offer valid proof one way or another.

Looking at the industry from a manufacturer's point of view, assuming a mainstream business model, very few people are getting rich. Prices of product are too low. Potentially an indicator of that WotC is right and the market requires a monopoly to be profitable, IF the prices are a true indicator of what the market will bear cost-wise.

In 1980 or so, a comic book cost 50 cents and a Player's Handbook cost 20 bucks (I think those numbers are pretty close). In 2003, a comic costs 2.50 (500% increase in price) and a Player's Handbook costs 30 bucks (50% increase in price). Both are luxury items (meaning no one needs a gaming book or a comic book), both have increased in quality of production, both use similar production methods (paper and printing) -- seems to me the price increase should be a little closer. Not the same maybe, but at least closer. Anyone want to discuss the cost of going to the movies? How about paperback genre fiction? Wanna try to find another luxury item with only a 50% increase in price over the last twenty years? How about computer games? I don't play 'em nowadays, but an Atari 2600 game cost what 20, 30 bucks? Nowadays a computer game is what 50, 60 bucks? That would be 100%+ increase, and there's improvements in technology to be taken into consideration (CDs are cheaper to manufacture than cartridges, much bigger market for computer games due to increased computer ownership over last 20 years, et al). BUT the lack of price increase IS valid if suppliers are faced with demand curve that shows: raise the price and no one will buy the product.

Of course, on the other hand, lack of price increases could be attributed to poor business practices on the part of game manufacturers. Gamers will pay more; just that no one has tested the waters. Nothing to do with the market at all; just plain old poor/lack of market research.

How about the shelf space issue? Is the reason shelf space in retail stores is dominated by d20 product indicative of gamer market approval (by means of dollars spent) of the d20 system? Or is it more like Marvel's attempt in the early 90s (think it was early nineties; maybe mid-nineties) to drive competitors out of the market by gobbling up shelf space in the comic book store, by publishing a billion jillion comics a month, and thereby position themselves as not just the market leader, but the only game in town? Are retailers themselves the cause -- too much work to research, order, and push a new system, when they can sell tried-and-true d20 product instead?

I'm sure there're more things to look at... but ultimately I'm unable to untangle the issue. Gut feeling: WotC's full of it and trying to create a monopoly by means of OGL and d20. I feel they're following the model established by Microsoft (who have also argued that multiple platforms/OSs are harmful to the market, as I recall). Parallels there: Windows is OGL; "Compatible with Windows" logo is the network tap as is the d20 logo. Can't touch the source code (MS still considers its code 'top-secret' right?); can't touch the character creation system...

Anyway, I'm concluding this ramble that I just spent too much time on, and in the end is rather ambivalent, (and has yet to address the question of whether the d20 system is any good, which is also important in relation to WotC's attempt to create a monopoly). But any value judgement assessed to d20/OGL, IMO, needs to be aware of WotC's possible intent vis-a-vis becoming a monopoly, as well as take into account the nature of the market -- namely whether it requires a monopoly to be profitable.

Oh yeah... for the sake of fairness... there is a difference btwn using the OGL and d20 System, as presented in the SRD, to create a RPG, and complying with the requirements which allow a third party publisher to have the 'd20' logo to appear on the cover of a product. And this difference is important to note when comparing WotC's practices with Microsoft's (err... at least I think it is. Must admit my limited knowledge of MS's is mostly prior to the gov't anti-trust suit.)

But, still, the issue remains: Is the OGL sans 'd20' logo profitable. If in truth the 'd20' logo is a valid network tap AND the sales of an RPG are in a large part predicated on network externalities AND d20 has the greatest network externalities, then no, not really.

Assuming the above assumption is true... To go back to phone companies... the network is the people connected via phone lines, the phone lines are the technology (materials, operators, etc.) used to connect, and the network tap is the telephone itself. To draw parallels (which I should point out can only help so much in understanding, and apples/oranges arguments can always be made) the network is gamers who understand the d20 system, the technology is the SRD, meaning the rules used to create the d20 system, the network tap is the 'd20' logo.

So using the SRD to create a system which is NOT d20 is essentially the same is creating a brand-new network using the same technology. Stress on the 'brand-new network'. WotC's assertion is that a large component of a system's value is the number of players who play that system -- not the technology utilized to create the system.

In other words, a publisher who creates a system using the SRD, can say this to the potential buyer: 'We offer you the same quality of system that d20 does.' But cannot say: 'We offer you access to the network of d20 players.' To use the parallel above... telephone company using the market leader's tech to establish itself can say this to potential customers: 'We offer you the same quality of tech as the market leader does -- clear connection, speed dial, voice mail, call waiting, whatever.' But when you ask, can I call Bob. The company might have to answer: 'Well, no, he's not a part of our network.' So do you change phone companies?

Anyway, I'm concluding this ramble for real now...

[Tasha]

Originally posted by allen
How about computer games? I don't play 'em nowadays, but an Atari 2600 game cost what 20, 30 bucks? Nowadays a computer game is what 50, 60 bucks? That would be 100%+ increase, and there's improvements in technology to be taken into consideration (CDs are cheaper to manufacture than cartridges, much bigger market for computer games due to increased computer ownership over last 20 years, et al). BUT the lack of price increase IS valid if suppliers are faced with demand curve that shows: raise the price and no one will buy the product.

I just want to correct a misimpression about the Computer Games industury. While it is less than 50¢ to make a CD or DVD in Bulk, there are more overhead costs than in the days of Atari 2600 Games.

In the 2600 days there was 1 engineer assigned to a product to write the code and in many cases to create the graphics. There was marketing costs and box printing, but overall low overhead.

Now in the days of GameCube/PS2/Xbox there are 10-20 engineers assigned to a project to write the game code ,3-5 artists who design the graphics, someone to design the levels. There are Voice actors to pay (Sometimes there are big name actors in a project). Then the marketing costs are much bigger with all of the advertising that accompanies any game. With all of this game companies make Less on a game (Profit per unit) than in the days of the 2600.
------
now back to our discussion...

Have you noticed how many companies with games that have their own game system have suddenly come out with d20 versions. Deadlands, Call of Cthullu, SAS, and a couple of others that I cannot remember now, have gone d20. I think that this is because of market pressure. They just don't want to be put out of business by the d20 juggernaut. Frankly, I don't blame them. WoTC has done with d20 what Steve Jackson Games has been trying to do with Gurps all along. Have the system do many game worlds esp other published worlds. The interesting thing is that SJG has to pay licencing fees to do Gurps books and pay an author to convert them, while WoTC gets the publishers to do the work themselves without having to pay a licence fee. Really sly.

[Nato]

Dang, this thread really blew up while I was reformatting my computer. Thanks for joing the conversation you guys.

I'm also glad HERO maitains it's system the way it does. I certainly would rather have one product a month that I know will be of good quality than to have have a bunch of mediocre thrid-party material put out every month that I have to wade through in search of a gem.

A clarification of the M&M thing. Not every rule in the book is OGL. In addition to IP and characters and M&M branding, they control new rules such as Hero and Villain points and a few others. They list these in a paragraph on one of the first pages in the book. Also, the way they write ABOUT any OGL rules or other rules is copyright Green Ronin. Even though the rules may be OGL, I couldn't simply lift a paragraph describing one of those rules and use it in my own book. I could use that rule, but would have to explain it in my own terms.

Did you know that the rules of a game can not be copyrighted in the United States? I read that somewhere on the OGL FAQ. There are other reason's though why I couldn't use someone's rules though - but would have to read it again and do more research to tell you why.

[allen]

Originally posted by Tasha


I just want to correct a misimpression about the Computer Games industury. While it is less than 50¢ to make a CD or DVD in Bulk, there are more overhead costs than in the days of Atari 2600 Games.

In the 2600 days there was 1 engineer assigned to a product to write the code and in many cases to create the graphics. There was marketing costs and box printing, but overall low overhead.

Now in the days of GameCube/PS2/Xbox there are 10-20 engineers assigned to a project to write the game code ,3-5 artists who design the graphics, someone to design the levels. There are Voice actors to pay (Sometimes there are big name actors in a project). Then the marketing costs are much bigger with all of the advertising that accompanies any game. With all of this game companies make Less on a game (Profit per unit) than in the days of the 2600.

Hmmm... ah well, might've been a poor example... so is the market appreciably larger nowadays? I mean does the "computer in every household" translate to "a computer game on every computer in every household"? Has the market expanded internationally?

I don't honestly know -- just curious.

Originally posted by Tasha

Have you noticed how many companies with games that have their own game system have suddenly come out with d20 versions. Deadlands, Call of Cthullu, SAS, and a couple of others that I cannot remember now, have gone d20. I think that this is because of market pressure. They just don't want to be put out of business by the d20 juggernaut. Frankly, I don't blame them. WoTC has done with d20 what Steve Jackson Games has been trying to do with Gurps all along. Have the system do many game worlds esp other published worlds. The interesting thing is that SJG has to pay licencing fees to do Gurps books and pay an author to convert them, while WoTC gets the publishers to do the work themselves without having to pay a licence fee. Really sly.

CoC d20 was produced by WotC... my understanding is that the ball got rolling prior to d20's actual release, and the product was intended to illustrate the applicability and versatility of d20, which is why WotC ate the cost on that one.

From what I've seen, most companies spin publication of d20 product as a way of attracting gamers to the original rule-system. I interpret this as cashing in and ultimately harmful to some of those systems (my opinion w/o a doubt; won't even argue that it's not). SJG publishes licensed material to attact gamers to GURPS and maintain their current market. *shrug* The difference might be pedantic...

I don't think GURPS ever commanded the market share that d20 by way of D&D does, so basically if SJG made its system Open Content, it would've passed without much notice or use. Coming back to network externalities... If GURPS doesn't have the network, it's not much use for them to make the system Open Content.

Again, I stress this is my opinion, WotC is the market leader, a position SJG never owned. WotC is using its position to create a monopoly on the rules system used for RPGs. WotC offers its competitors access to its network if they follow certain guidelines -- these guidelines equal required use of the PHB. Each time a competitor profits by tapping WotC's network, WotC profits thus increasing its already considerable market share. SJG couldn't do this/ever have done this... they publish GURPS whatever to keep hold of their current market ('You don't need to buy that RPG to play it, you can buy the GURPS version instead"). Thus SJG has to pay a fee.

Anyway, agreed the SJG/WotC parallel is worth noting; but I think there are contributing factors (other than the ones above) difficult to decompose without involving subjective opinion.

Also, I should probably state my use of the word, 'monopoly', is kind of fast-and-loose... when I say monopoly, what I mean is one very large company co-existing with a bunch of smaller ones, who have little to no impact on the market due to their financial well-being being pegged on the market leader's.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Nato
Did you know that the rules of a game can not be copyrighted in the United States? I read that somewhere on the OGL FAQ. There are other reason's though why I couldn't use someone's rules though - but would have to read it again and do more research to tell you why.

Quibble: The written expression of the rules (i.e. the text) can be copyrighted. The rules themselves can't be protected by copyright or patent, but can contain trademarked terms. Someone could "create" a game that is played exactly the same way as D&D3, using the same dice in the same situations, as long as none of WotC's text or trademarked terms were used, and could knock themselves out selling it. (Gygax and Arneson missed a bet -- or maybe not -- when they didn't trademark Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma, and d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d100, d%, etc.)

[Starcorp Man]

Originally posted by Nato
I'm also glad HERO maitains it's system the way it does. I certainly would rather have one product a month that I know will be of good quality than to have have a bunch of mediocre thrid-party material put out every month that I have to wade through in search of a gem.

Quality is always subjective. Dollars to Doughnuts, I would buy stock in WoTC then DOJ, no matter how much I love Hero. I've noticed a trend here on this board, since I've come back here is that there is a lot of Hero gladhanding, for no other reason to praise it, despite all opposistion. Hero is not the end all be all, and neither is d20. D20 gave a big shot into the arm to the industry, and industry losing more and more new blood to computer games. There's no denying that. D20 also allowed companies that normally wouldn't of had a chance to compete, to compete. The subpar companies are going to the weighside, people are doing that through their dollar.

And all d20 and the srd did was allow people to do what they were always able to do. Game Mechanics aren't copyrightable.

[MarkusDark]

Originally posted by allen
[/FONT]

Hmmm... ah well, might've been a poor example... so is the market appreciably larger nowadays? I mean does the "computer in every household" translate to "a computer game on every computer in every household"? Has the market expanded internationally?

I don't honestly know -- just curious.
[/B]

The market is larger nowadays than it was previously. During Atari's time, you had to buy the Atari unit and then the games. That is all it did. With a computer, you do your finances, surf the web, get email and now you can get a game to play on it as well. So you don't have to buy an additional unit to play, just the game.

Although it doesn't mean a computer game on every computer. I had a rather old system until just a few days ago. This was intentional as I did not want a system that could play modern day games as I wanted to have a social life. However, I needed to upgrade and when I did, I now find myself sitting online playing Shattered Galaxy - a game I helped to develop.

Also, realize that the styles of games have changed. Instead of 'arcade' styles that the Atari had, most games these days have a theme, story, almost like a movie you are helping to direct and move along. It appeals to a much larger crowd. For those that like the shoot, move shoot move things, they have those too.

Internationally, it has grown as well. I know in Korea that there have been gang wars over Online games. In that country, not everyone has a computer but there are a plethora of 'internet cafes' that pay leases for so many licenses of a game. Each geographic location has different ways that they apply it but the gaming industry as a whole has increased over the Atari.

Akin to movies, if you were to put out a black and white 'talkie' of the qualities of the early 50's and try to market it and charge $10 a head like today's blockbusters, you'd probably get a small cult following but nothing that would justify the costs - UNLESS you have a really incredible movie there (and the same can be said for gaming - such as Deerhunter).

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Shadow Stalker
Until the industry can deversify some, gamers will use D20 and some will get bored with it and play PC games.

Or some will get frustrated and switch to Hero, as seems to be happening to some extent, since Hero is selling pretty well by all accounts.

[MarkusDark]

The reason I think that Hero is selling so well is that people are talking about it again. Someone walks up and says something like "Wish there was a game about mutated ants that eat cheerleaders..." and the respose is "Well, you can do that in Hero." No need to find the suppliment that has the rules for it - wham bango, it's done in Hero. Plus, with the computer age, there is a slightly increasing focus upon math skills so it is a little bit easier for the new generations to adopt and understand the math intensive creation system.

[Nato]

What math intensive creation system?

[Tasha]

Originally posted by Nato
What math intensive creation system?

I know that you are joking, but to be more serious. I was severly math challenged in High School. I barely passed my Algebra class. When I started to play Hero I used to use the table at the front of the Advantage and Limitation sections to figure out point costs.It wasn't till much later that I became such a dedicated number cruncher. I got to where I could figure out the point costs pretty much in my head. Of course in this day of computers, I have let this skill get rusty. I have Hero to thank for honing my math skills.

Tasha