Legends and Lore - Charting the Course for D&D

[Mark CMG]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Charting the Course for D&D)

We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.

I don't know. It feels like something is missing . . .

*cough*OGL*cough*



Seriously, the OGL was a huge part of the relaunch success that brought 3.XE into being. That they don't ever mention it seems like a big mistake. The portion I quoted from this L&L article seems to cry out for OGL use for this next rendition of D&D. I know it's going to wind up being a non-starter for a lot of gamers which seems like the wrong way to go since I don't think that using the OGL would actually keep other gamers away.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I suspect the reason they don't mention it is because no decision has been made yet. Or if one has (and they aren't going to have an OGL) there's no point in saying that now because there will be a whole host of people who will write the game off automatically and not participate in the open playtest just out of spite.

Wait until the open playtest has gone on for quite a while... hopefully inspiring folks of 3.5 and earlier to test the game out and lend their voices towards making the game more inclusive and a better game experience for more players... and then tell folks that "sorry, we aren't going to open the game up to the OGL". By that point, maybe those players will actually like the game enough on its own merits that it won't matter that they won't be able to buy eventual game books from Necromancer or Green Ronin for it.

 

[Mark CMG]

I suspect the reason they don't mention it is because no decision has been made yet. Or if one has (and they aren't going to have an OGL) there's no point in saying that now because there will be a whole host of people who will write the game off automatically and not participate in the open playtest just out of spite.

"Spite?" Yeah, I don't think so. I'd guess it's more a matter of wanting to work toward something that would be under the OGL or wanting to work toward something else that would use the OGL if D&D isn't go to use it going forward.

Wait until the open playtest has gone on for quite a while... hopefully inspiring folks of 3.5 and earlier to test the game out and lend their voices towards making the game more inclusive and a better game experience for more players... and then tell folks that "sorry, we aren't going to open the game up to the OGL". By that point, maybe those players will actually like the game enough on its own merits that it won't matter that they won't be able to buy eventual game books from Necromancer or Green Ronin for it.

The problem with that reasoning is that there are tons of great designers out there who would probably lend their voices right from the start if WotC declared for the OGL from the start, and a lot of them work for other great companies. I'd imagine if this was going to be under the OGL they would have mentioned it, too. That's such a shame since I'd love to see a new edition use it and also have supplements from GR, Paizo, etc., that were designed directly for it. This would be one much bigger tent again and I thought that was the goal of all this hoopla.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Also, while Mike and Monte may be capable of creating a game that pleases most of the people most of the time, I expect the OGL decision is completely out of their hands. That seems like an top-level management decision to me.

Still, what with the open playtest showcasing the rules months before the game is released, I'd say we shouldn't count something like the OGL out just yet.

 

[Mark CMG]

Also, while Mike and Monte may be capable of creating a game that pleases most of the people most of the time, I expect the OGL decision is completely out of their hands. That seems like an top-level management decision to me.

Still, what with the open playtest showcasing the rules months before the game is released, I'd say we shouldn't count something like the OGL out just yet.

Both good points. Designers have little say over the legal side of things (though I suspect they'd know up front if a decision had already been made or was under consideration).

Sadly, I'm going to call this one as dead in the water. Makes no sense not to make that decision right up front and take advantage of the goodwill it would engender as well as allow for the pool of OGC to be in play for people to mention as something they would like to see in the new D&D. It would be so sinple to just mention some mechanic from an old GR supplement or another bit from Malhavoc book, maybe even put them up for a poll, then add them into the new D&D with the appropriate OGL section 15 addition.

It just seems weird that WotC invented the perfect mechanism whereby to unify during the creation of a new edition and they don't seem to want to even acknowledge it. It's like walking to your next carpentry job and chucking the hammer in a dumpster on the way.

 

[Umbran]

I myself don't recall - How long before 3e's release did they have the details of the OGL worked out and available to the public?

 

[Dausuul]

Makes no sense not to make that decision right up front and take advantage of the goodwill it would engender as well as allow for the pool of OGC to be in play for people to mention as something they would like to see in the new D&D.

It also made no sense to take forever with the GSL, deliver it months late, and then have to go back and do it over again before any of the 3PPs would even consider touching it, thus driving Paizo to abandon its plans to support 4E and create Pathfinder. But that's what WotC did.

It's always dangerous to assume that people have all their ducks in a row and are making every decision out of clear-eyed, cool-headed, well-considered self-interest. Like DEFCON 1, I suspect they're still hashing out what kind of third-party licensing, if any, they will allow.

 

[Mark CMG]

I myself don't recall - How long before 3e's release did they have the details of the OGL worked out and available to the public?

Probably best to ask [MENTION=3312]RyanD[/MENTION] but there were a number of ground floor publishers in before it was public, under a "Gentlemen's Agreement" which continued to be used with others once it was publically available until the first version of the license was finalized. Plus, the OGL is already worked out, so not much to do there really. They could do some sort of alternate license like the GSL, but we've all seen how that turned out (very limited success and bungled at launch).

They could also have come up with a OGL 2.0 with some minor adjustments if they would have liked but, really, if they haven't mentioned it, they likely aren't going to do so. I think they learned enough between the GSL debacle and not having the VTT ready in time to take full advantage of it, that having those ducks in a row for this announcement would be imperative.

I guess it's possible they just haven't considered using it.

 

[LurkAway]

I don't know. It feels like something is missing . . .

*cough*OGL*cough*

The Escapist : Speak Your Mind in the Next Version of Dungeons & Dragons

The decision has not yet been made on the level of openness the new edition will have.

"We'll have more information on the GSL as it relates to the next edition in the near future. Personally, I have a copy of 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' on the shelf at work," Mearls said, admitting the landmark essay regarding open source software systems impacts his views on the subject. "From my days as a programmer and as a freelance RPG designer, the bulk of my work involved open platforms which did a lot for a game that relies so much on individual creativity."

 

[Mark CMG]

The Escapist : Speak Your Mind in the Next Version of Dungeons & Dragons

Thanks for the link to that particular story!

We'll have more information on the GSL as it relates to the next edition in the near future.

I see two problems with this: The GSL is not the license they should be considering and not mentioning this in their own L&L column suggests they are already not dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. Well, three problems if you count how they don't have details at this announcement stage since the strung out nature of the GSL process for 4E was a disaster.