Today, Margaret Weis Products revealed the language for their Cortex Plus license, which comes in two varieties: one for fans, and one for publishers. This is the end result of MWP’s Kickstarter of the Cortex Plus Hacker’s Guide — a stretch goal of which was described in this update as “an open license for Cortex Plus.” The only problem, however, is that this license isn’t open at all.
In practice, aside from some very odd language (including a requirement that publishers make their product available via DriveThruRPG, a separate company that is not connected to MWP in any way), the license actually more closely resembles the Savage Worlds license from Pinnacle Entertainment Group. (And, to be fair, in earlier updates, MWP said that the license would be similar to Savage Worlds — they only later used the “open” term.)
Monte Cook was one of the designers of 3rd edition D&D (the game which launched the Open Game License), and, once he left Wizards of the Cost, he founded Malhavoc Press which benefitted immensely from the Open Game License. In the past month, he released the licensing terms for his new work, Numenara, which has been the subject of criticism and backlash for, among other things, not being a true Open License.
It honestly stuns me that there are publishers who still have not learned the lesson of D&D 4th Edition. The title of this post may put it a bit dramatically, but the simple fact is this: If your system is not truly Open, you are dooming your game to a niche audience, and willingly giving up market share to systems that ARE open.
4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons wasn’t open — and ended up conceding their position at the top of the tabletop hobby games market to Pathfinder — ironically just a re-titled and tinkered-with version of the previous edition of D&D, which WAS open.
And yet, publishers still cling to the old ideas of their IP and their Brand, ignoring the lessons of the past decade.
Since 2000, a system paired with an open-use license, whether the familiar OGL or more widely-applicable licenses like Creative Commons, has become an expected standard for a majority of gamers — it’s driven the success of FATE, Pathfinder, the entire Old-School Renaissance, etc.
It’s a fairly simple formula:
|
|
|
More material released (both fan and professional)
|
|
|
Wider network for your system
|
|
|
Larger market share.
At this point, there’s been 13 years for people to see this, and to see the fruits of this model doing great things for designers and companies that have taken advantage of it. But there’s still resistance, even in the face of evidence.
Publishers need to become comfortable with the idea that their systems are not their true IP — the expressions of their systems, through their game settings, are where that concentration should lie. The system itself should be viewed as part of your branding — and the more people you can get hawking your brand, the better your position in the market.
At this point, doing things the old way is telling gamers that you’re fine with a smaller audience. Which tells them that they’re not going to find it as easy to find other people to play with, if they use your system. I’m not sure why any publisher would choose to send that message.