A small handful of new 5E designers' quotes: Design Goals, Healers, Art, OGL

[Kobold Boots]

I think the lessons learned from the original OGL were rather simple:

1. Having a OGL that allows for compatibility and free use of content for supplements that explicitly bear the WoTC role-playing brand is a very good thing. It helps the hobby and enables publishers to provide content for WoTC brands.

2. Having a OGL that allows for complete versions of new games to be developed needs to be carefully worded and observed. Paizo was a wonderful resource for D&D and still puts out awesome Pathfinder stuff. (I play both games) However, the existence of Pathfinder is a bad thing for D&D sales.

Expect a OGL that allows for point one, but doesn't allow another Paizo to sprout up when the edition gets revised. i'd also expect that at some point there's going to need to be a new edition of Pathfinder. When that happens they'll be going through the same stuff WoTC is going through now and tables may turn back towards D&D.

 

[Azgulor]

How in the hell can you even do what Rob Schwalb is suggesting within the same game/campaign/table?

Sorry, you can't. If Jerry is running a BECMI-style character and his turn takes 10 seconds, how is it fun for him to wait through Sally's 3e or 4e-style character with all of their tactical options.

And what about Frank, the poor GM. Do the tactics that the orcs are employing expand/contract based upon the PC they are fighting?

While this modular thing sounds great, Mr. Scwalb's statement sounds like, well, BS.

It'll be very interesting to see what that statement really means.

 

[Echohawk]

Can you elaborate on this? I don't recall anything like this being mentioned, either at Gen Con or here on the boards.

I happened to recently come across another mention, tracked down description from back then. The relevant part:

Thanks mcmillan, that's exactly the slip I was referring to. Couple that with the repeated banging of the we-support-older-editions drum, and I'm convinced WotC must have some specific plans for the electronic re-release of out-of-print products.

 

[jbear]

This.

There are going to have to be some tough decisions made about the direction of D&D.

To me the crux of the issue all comes down to Lawful vs Chaotic players.

There are some D&D players (Lawful) who love the structure of pen and paper RPGs.

They want rules for everything. They want no metagaming. They want fairness.

These are the folks that love Grid play, skill challenges, balanced classes/races, in-depth rules for charging, grappling, sliding, flying, etc. They want the feel of a chess game on steroids, where their clever build ideas give them a numerical edge.

Then there are the others (Chaotic) who feel all of this bogs down the game. How can you get into the story of the game, when every three seconds you are having to refer to one of fifteen books for how something proceeds?

These are the folks that love grid-less battle with easy to remember base rules, vancian magic, DM's "winging" it, and lack of balance when it makes since story-wise. They want to feel as if they are actor's in a play being written on the fly.

Sadly, I DM for a group of buddies where I have extremists on both sides. Someone's not going to be happy. Should be fun to see how this all pans out.

I have very diverse players in my main group as well, so I know where you're coming from.

A thought occured to me while reading your post.

Just as I know I have Actors, Explorers and Slayers at the table and give room for them each to enjoy that part of the game they like most, as equally and fairly as I am able, maybe, if the system is flexible enough, I can have a balance of quick and dirty fights (Chaotic=gridless=non tactical), probably non-important fights, and full on tactical fights (lawful=battle grid), probably for important boss fights.

So as difficult as it may have appeared initially, I can have both players happy, as long as they agree that it's fair that there is a balance struck and each is equally entitled to their preferred combat style. Basically everyone needs to get on the bus. The DM takes each one to their preferred stop. Why not enjoy the ride to the other players busstop, knowing that your busstop will be up soon?

How they do that (assuming that is the kind of thing they might be aiming for) without making a DM's life hell ...? Well that will be interesting to see now won't it?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think the lessons learned from the original OGL were rather simple:

1. Having a OGL that allows for compatibility and free use of content for supplements that explicitly bear the WoTC role-playing brand is a very good thing. It helps the hobby and enables publishers to provide content for WoTC brands.

2. Having a OGL that allows for complete versions of new games to be developed needs to be carefully worded and observed. Paizo was a wonderful resource for D&D and still puts out awesome Pathfinder stuff. (I play both games) However, the existence of Pathfinder is a bad thing for D&D sales.

Expect a OGL that allows for point one, but doesn't allow another Paizo to sprout up when the edition gets revised. i'd also expect that at some point there's going to need to be a new edition of Pathfinder. When that happens they'll be going through the same stuff WoTC is going through now and tables may turn back towards D&D.

This ignores synergy.

I do not know anybody that owns either Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved that doesn't also own 3.X. Also, they pull out Iron Heroes for a change of pace - more often than not they are running 3.X, and these days they are doing so in the form of Pathfinder.

WotC would, I think, be better served putting the whole kit & kaboodle of the OGL back than trying to cherry pick to get the results they want.

Trying to do so when creating the GSL is a large part of what got them into this mess.

And honestly? Pathfinder has enough of a following that genie ain't never going back into the bottle. OSRIC has happened, Fantasy Craft has happened.

Trying to clip the wings of the OGL at this point is closing the barn door after the cows have left. Heck, it is closing the barn doors, then wondering how to get the cows back into the barn, now that the doors are closed....

The Auld Grump

 

[Morrus]

One approach to the OGL decision is to look at the D&D history of the last few years.

• 3E - successful
• 4E - less successful
• Pathfinder - successful

There is a correlation (and I agree that doesn't mean causation; but it's a line of evidence at the least) between the successful and less successful games.
Of course, as I said, it is just a correlation. Doesn't take into account that a separate cause, such as the design of the game itself, might be the actual cause.

 

[Grogg of the North]

"I don't think 'requiring someone to be a healer' is a sacred cow, but having healers in the game is. I wouldn't want to see D&D do away with healing, but I don't think there's anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want, ignoring concepts like role and function when putting together their party." - Rodney Thompson.

This isn't a mechanics issue. It's a matter of being a good GM and taking your players abilities into account when you plan the adventures.

 

[RangerWickett]

As much as I enjoyed the OGL on the customer end, I would find it hard to argue with the idea that their main competitor exists solely because of the OGL.

If 3e never had an OGL, sure, Pathfinder probably wouldn't exist. But since 4e did not have a viable OGL, and since the GSL took forever to materialize, Paizo decided they didn't want to deal with uncertainty.

If 4e had just stuck with the OGL, we probably wouldn't have Pathfinder as the force it is today. I'm sure someone would've made a 3e clone, but probably not a company with as much brain share and fan support as Paizo.

As for why to have OGL for 5e? Well, it'll generate good will. I think WotC really needs as much of that as possible.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Given the OSR, I'm confident in saying that someone could've made a 3e clone, even without the OGL.

But that's alternate history. In the world that exists, I think WotC was pretty...arrogant, maybe?...to assume that 4e could do without OGL support. The OGL does one thing even the elephant in the room (looking more like that elephant is on a diet these days, but...) benefits from: it externalizes some of the costs of support and development onto the third party publishers.

I mean, Mike Mearls, via his work with Monte Cook, owes his career to the OGL.

 

[Morrus]

It is certainly worth noting that the OGL has been very generous to both Monte Cook and Mike Mearls. So I'd hope they're both coming at it from a good perspective.