And 3pp stay away from 5e in droves, Pathfinder remains holding the #1 spot....I don't see WotC moving back to the OGL, however much I might desire it. I think they will loosen up the GSL, but not nearly as much as the OGL. Right or wrong, I think many in WotC identify the 3pp game systems based off the d20 system as harmful to D&D, and the newest iteration of the license will aim to cut those off while still encouraging fan-based creations.
Something as simple as putting a page and font size restriction in the new license could have some success, ie derived products could not exceed 32 pages (plus cover), and a minimum font size of 8 (whatever that is in picas and various measurements). I don't think Arcana Unearthed would have ever gone to press if it had to be printed and sold as 10 different products.
This on the other hand.Well There are things I both like and dislike about the OGL and GSL. I like the GSL in that it references the items in books, instead of the separate SRD from the OGL. Which is great because then 3PP publishers don't have to wait until the errata FINALLY gets into the SRD.
Of course the original GSL has the poison pill (and several other objectionable) clauses.
One thing that I would really, REALLY like to see , if there is a future OGL/GSL for 5e, is something like the following clause.
"Every publisher must CLEARLY identify OGC content that they use in sourcebooks and the original source. This may be listed on a business website as opposed to listed in each sourcebook."
This is a direct result of my work with PCGen, there are so many publishers using other's works, there should be a direct way to ensure that the original creator is recognized for their work. This way it makes my job easier, AND the added benefit of making the Sec. 15 of the OGL page WAY clearer.
I used section 15 as a shopping list on occasion. Found some good books that way.
I'm not saying I favor it in the least. However, it would eliminate most, or all, of the print 3pp, while leaving a clear field for the supplemental rules pdf market (ie supergenius games, etc, etc).WotC would do better not having a 3pp license at all than using a 32 page choke chain. That would be an insult, not a license.
It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.I'm not saying I favor it in the least. However, it would eliminate most, or all, of the print 3pp, while leaving a clear field for the supplemental rules pdf market (ie supergenius games, etc, etc).
/snip
2) Feeding game design innovations back into 5E. People forget that many of 4E's innovations can be traced to Mearls, and Mearls was an OGL Master before he was a WotC Developer. Who knows who the next Mearls is waiting to be tapped for a future D&D?
Everyone who dislikes the OGL can feel free to tell me how wrong I am and how unnecessary it is.
As opposed to merely almost empty, which we got with 3.5, despite having the exact same licensing as 3.0. And with pre-3e D&D, where all licensing was purely on an ad hoc, company-to-company basis.It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.
A recipe for failure that WotC has already sampled with the GSL.
I hate to tell you this, but there was a lot of 3PP stuff for 3.5.As opposed to merely almost empty, which we got with 3.5, despite having the exact same licensing as 3.0. And with pre-3e D&D, where all licensing was purely on an ad hoc, company-to-company basis.