Nebulous
Legend
Heck, I don't want another Pathfinder either! I don't know what the solution is either. Might be as simple as "you can't use these rules under any label other than D&D 5th edition" or something.
D&D 5E Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel
Heck, I don't want another Pathfinder either! I don't know what the solution is either. Might be as simple as "you can't use these rules under any label other than D&D 5th edition" or something.
delericho
Legend
One thing they could maybe do is open just the names of things (spells, monsters, etc) under the OGL, without the mechanical details. That would allow people to support the game without opening the door for a new Pathfinder.
(Not that they actually need to do even that - as the existing OGL third-party products demonstrate.)
(Not that they actually need to do even that - as the existing OGL third-party products demonstrate.)
They already did that, years ago. Take a look at the 3.0 SRD - "magic missile" and so on are right there.
http://opengamingcontent.wordpress.com/revised-v-3-5-system-reference-document/
The exceptions are a few unique monsters (beholders, illithids, couple of others), plus a few slightly changed spell names.
delericho
Legend
Indeed. I noted that 5e support products already exist based on that SRD.
But there are some few things that aren't open (Legendary Actions, some of the specifics of backgrounds). Third-party suppliers can work around these to provide support, but it would obviously be easier if they didn't have to do so. If WotC want to enable that support, but are concerned about someone doing a new Pathfinder, then there's no reason they can't open up a minimal set of names without necessarily releasing the underlying mechanics.
What's wrong with competition? It works out better for the overall community.
Pathfinder didn't obtain the top spot because they were backed by deep pockets. They took the spot by producing more creative and interesting content. WotC should not be afraid of competition. Though I am surprised that the business people want an OGL. I think Mearls and the creative people won't mind at all. Many of the creative people make companies and produce content for the game like Monte Cooke or Sean K. Reynolds. I'd love to see Paizo get a shot to produce material for 5E. Their modules are top notch. They would add great stuff to the game.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
If it were me I would build in a sell down time and a cancle time.
(Warning numbers pulled from back side just to start idea) I would do something like This licence is good for as long as 5e is the inprint and supported edition of Wotc, and for 2 years after that. However by using this agreement you agree to not only stop publishing after that 2 year mark but you will stop working on new material for the system before that point so you can sell your back log.
Well, other than the exceptions you mentioned, they can't re-open terms that are already open.
Hmmm. How big is the list of brand new terms? They're the only ones that matter. Though I'm sure "Backgrounds" has been opened up a thousand times before; it's hardly a unique or unusual word.
Legendary Actions
Backgrounds
Advantage/Disadvantage
GMforPowergamers
Legend
This sucks.
after the great news of no kender I am super bumbed at the idea of an OGL... I was really hopeing for a much more limited license.
after the great news of no kender I am super bumbed at the idea of an OGL... I was really hopeing for a much more limited license.
no it's not. It made for a far worse edition war over the last 5 years, and even made the overall community more fractured and tribal.
BS... yes Piazo does a good job but lets not pretend that if they had to start from scratch instead of a prebuilt game it would be just as good. those deep pockets built the frame for piazo... they were just WotC deep pockets.
so would I.... just in a limited way.
