Change and the OGL

[hanez]

Theres been a lot of discussions about change and innovation on ths board lately and it got me to thinking about how much of this has to do with the OGL.

It seems to me that once WOTC decided after 3.5 that the next edition wouldnt be OGL, they had no choice but to introduce many changes, almost change for the sake of being completely incompatible.

If they didn't change the system completely, then 3rd parties could have kept using the 3.5 OGL to release compatible products to compete with 4e. This was really starting to get bad towards the end when competitors were releasing alternate players handbooks that were actually quite good. By introducing 30 core levels, the power system and all the other fundamental changes they walled them selves off from the OGL and the previous edition.

So I guess the question is if they still are against the OGL, how can they bring back the "classic feel" while protecting there IP? As a player I'm hoping they embrace the OGL.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It seems to me that once WOTC decided after 3.5 that the next edition wouldnt be OGL, they had no choice but to introduce many changes, almost change for the sake of being completely incompatible.

An interesting point. As much as we discuss philosophical issues surrounding game design, it is entirely plausible that the business decision to abandon open gaming was an impetus to radically redefine the game.

So I guess the question is if they still are against the OGL, how can they bring back the "classic feel" while protecting there IP? As a player I'm hoping they embrace the OGL.

It would be extremely difficult. For their own sake, they had better rethink their licensing strategy.

Without an OGL, their game would have to be better in the eyes of the gaming populace than the existing standard (not just the d20 SRD but the PRD). Not only that, but better by so much that people are willing to choose it despite the license and despite the fact that there are good quality open source D&D rules available. Good luck with that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't doubt that was part of the logic, but as a practical matter, 4E could definitely be reverse-engineered under the 3E OGL. Depending on how different 5E is, we will likely see at least some effort to do so, I'm guessing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I4E could definitely be reverse-engineered under the 3E OGL.

Really? I guess that's a testament to the vagueness of the license?

 

[Gundark]

My industry contact stated that preliminary signs are that 5e is looking to have a far better licence than 4e did.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Really? I guess that's a testament to the vagueness of the license?

No, it's a testament to 1) game rules can't be copyrighted and 2) 4E is D20 with some additional systems bolted onto it. Sure, characters are built differently and the game is rebalanced, but it still works more like D20 than it does some other game.

 

[Mark CMG]

No, it's a testament to 1) game rules can't be copyrighted and 2) 4E is D20 with some additional systems bolted onto it. Sure, characters are built differently and the game is rebalanced, but it still works more like D20 than it does some other game.

It's the terminology, not the game mechanics per se, that makes giving 4E and OGL treatment a project with ever-diminishing returns. Once you have to use so many synomyns to skirt around IP that the game becomes difficult to recognize, you've put more effort into the project than warranted.

My industry contact stated that preliminary signs are that 5e is looking to have a far better licence than 4e did.

While interesting, I think the GSL debacle has made most 3PP wary of anything short of simply using the OGL.

 

[Yora]

So I guess the question is if they still are against the OGL, how can they bring back the "classic feel" while protecting there IP? As a player I'm hoping they embrace the OGL.

"If" is the magic word. Because the public statements say something different.

"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 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." - Mike Mearls.

"And although of course no one can possibly speak with actual authority of the future on this topic, I can assure you that the OGL issues that plagued 4th Edition's release are lessons that did not go unheeded." - Bruce Cordell.

"I think that an open license speaks to how people think about D&D, and in some ways it is a big part of the game’s culture. We want people to feel like we’re making an effort to include everything that they love about the game, and we’re exploring options for third party publishers." - Mike Mearls.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's the terminology, not the game mechanics per se, that makes giving 4E and OGL treatment a project with ever-diminishing returns. Once you have to use so many synomyns to skirt around IP that the game becomes difficult to recognize, you've put more effort into the project than warranted.

I only read through the 4E PHB, DMG and MM1 once each before giving them to my local library, but I didn't see any terms that either don't already exist in the OGL or are distinctive enough to get legal protection. "Marking" a target is a pretty generic term, for instance, and is used in a lot of games -- including the dreaded MMOs.

I also don't know that WotC would particularly care to fight over someone trying to create a 4E version of Pathfinder any more than they worried about OSRIC -- they'll be focused on the new hotness. And since it seems likely that the online 4E support will be going away at some point, even the best 4E hard copy clone is going to have a harder road ahead of it than Pathfinder and OSRIC did.

 

[Mark CMG]

I only read through the 4E PHB, DMG and MM1 once each before giving them to my local library, but I didn't see any terms that either don't already exist in the OGL or are distinctive enough to get legal protection. "Marking" a target is a pretty generic term, for instance, and is used in a lot of games -- including the dreaded MMOs.

Marking, for example, might seem a generic term but if it functions within the cloned system precisely the way it functions in 4E then WotC would have some problem with it. So, too, any number of "powers" have distinct naming conventions, as well do creatures and the categories of creatures, and more. It would be very tricky to dance around the naming conventions, IMO.

I also don't know that WotC would particularly care to fight over someone trying to create a 4E version of Pathfinder any more than they worried about OSRIC -- they'll be focused on the new hotness. And since it seems likely that the online 4E support will be going away at some point, even the best 4E hard copy clone is going to have a harder road ahead of it than Pathfinder and OSRIC did.

They might be less inclined to be litigious since the announced, intended demise of 4E but they've been diligent in the past about protecting the IP of 4E so someone would be taking their chances, particularly if 5E is going to be primarily based on 4E but with some adjustments to be more inclusive to gamers of past editions. If a lot of 4E is going to carry over, WotC will likely be very protective of 4E IP has it relates to 5E IP. The jury is still out on the details of 5E but we'll probably know a lot more as we get closer to the so-called "open" playtest.