D&D 5E Is D&D Next Open?

[mikkelibob]

So much of 5e is included in the existing OGL, couldn't a 3PP publish something based on the existing OGL and just say "compatible with the latest edition" or something similar? What concepts are truly new... may advantage/disadvantage? Seems like it would be easy to write around whatever buzz words wizards tries to claim as copyright.

 

[Morrus]

So much of 5e is included in the existing OGL, couldn't a 3PP publish something based on the existing OGL and just say "compatible with the latest edition" or something similar? What concepts are truly new... may advantage/disadvantage? Seems like it would be easy to write around whatever buzz words wizards tries to claim as copyright.

Sure. But the benefit of publishing something compatible is not the actual compatibility - that's easy - it lies in being able to clearly say it's compatible. That's what makes customers take a look at it. If you can't tell people it's compatible, why bother doing it?

Nebulous "compatible with the latest edition of a popular fantasy RPG" or somesuch just don't work well; they have near-zero branding value. So yes, you can do it, but you won't sell many. You're better off creating your own brand than trying to sneak in compatibility language with someone else's.

 

[delericho]

So much of 5e is included in the existing OGL, couldn't a 3PP publish something based on the existing OGL and just say "compatible with the latest edition" or something similar? What concepts are truly new... may advantage/disadvantage? Seems like it would be easy to write around whatever buzz words wizards tries to claim as copyright.

Some people (such as Goodman Games) did essentially that with 4e adventures. However, it's a bit tricky, as you have to make sure you're only using 'open' terminology (in particular, with 4e there were some icons for attack types, etc, that couldn't be used). Ultimately, while such efforts worked, they were always a bit clunky.

(Indeed, in most cases it should be possible without using any license at all, since game mechanics aren't protected by copyright. It's never been shown that the OGL is actually necessary at all. However, it's a boon for people to go from being reasonably sure they're okay to being certain they're okay. But if you're using it for 4e or 5e materials, you probably lose that certainty.)

 

[delericho]

Sure. But the benefit of publishing something compatible is not the actual compatibility - that's easy - it lies in being able to clearly say it's compatible.

I thought the OGL (specifically section 7) stated that you weren't allowed to say you were compatible anyway? That was why the early Pathfinder volumes made sure to say they were for use with "the world's oldest RPG", or words to that effect.

 

[Morrus]

I thought the OGL (specifically section 7) stated that you weren't allowed to say you were compatible anyway? That was why the early Pathfinder volumes made sure to say they were for use with "the world's oldest RPG", or words to that effect.

Not allowed to without permission. The d20 STL provided that permission (sorta). And the GSL does also, without the OGL, but that's a separate conversation. But Paizo's done exactly what it needed to do. Pathfinder isn't branded as compatible with 3.5. It's branded as Pathfinder; it's own brand (and they've done it very well). They invested a lot in creating their own brand rather than trying to nebulously indicate compatibility with someone else's. Now everyone wants to be compatible with Pathfinder.

 

[delericho]

Not allowed to without permission. The d20 STL provided that permission (sorta). And the GSL does also, without the OGL, but that's a separate conversation.

Fair point. But if 5e is OGL (as suggested by some of the early posts in this thread), how is that different from the case where it's not, but a company uses it informally to make compatible materials? In either case, they can't indicate compatibility (unless specific permission is given, of course).

But Paizo's done exactly what it needed to do. Pathfinder isn't branded as compatible with 3.5. It's branded as Pathfinder;

That's the case now. But when it first started out, it was pretty important that those first Pathfinder volumes indicate their compatibility with 3.5e, and that was done using the "world's oldest RPG" wording. It was only once the Pathfinder RPG had been out for quite some time, and the Pathfinder brand established in its own right, that they dropped that connection.

(Although there's a very interesting thought experiment there: if Pathfinder's big advantage was not 3.5e compatibility but rather access to the Dragon subscriber-base, what would have happened if Pathfinder #1 ("Burnt Offerings") hadn't been a 3.5e adventure, but rather a fantasy adventure built for a new fantasy RPG? Would the Dragon subscribers still have followed them in numbers, allowing them to build upwards, or would Pathfinder have sunk like a stone? Of course, we'll never know...)

 

[Nikosandros]

They invested a lot in creating their own brand rather than trying to nebulously indicate compatibility with someone else's. Now everyone wants to be compatible with Pathfinder.

Exactly. And Paizo has, smartly, created a license that allows other companies to openly declare compatibility with Pathfinder.

 

[Alzrius]

Fair point. But if 5e is OGL (as suggested by some of the early posts in this thread), how is that different from the case where it's not, but a company uses it informally to make compatible materials? In either case, they can't indicate compatibility (unless specific permission is given, of course).

It's taken as fait accompli that should WotC put 5E under the OGL, they'll create a new compatibility license when they do. They knew to do it before, after all.

That's the case now. But when it first started out, it was pretty important that those first Pathfinder volumes indicate their compatibility with 3.5e, and that was done using the "world's oldest RPG" wording. It was only once the Pathfinder RPG had been out for quite some time, and the Pathfinder brand established in its own right, that they dropped that connection.

The first Pathfinder material was released prior to the finalization of the Pathfinder RPG, and was still itself 3.5. It had to use another way to indicate compatibility because the d20 STL had been revoked by WotC. Once the Pathfinder RPG came out, I recall that the Pathfinder Compatibility License came out at the same time, at which point it was adopted near-instantly by people publishing Pathfinder third-party products.

 

[darjr]

(Although there's a very interesting thought experiment there: if Pathfinder's big advantage was not 3.5e compatibility but rather access to the Dragon subscriber-base, what would have happened if Pathfinder #1 ("Burnt Offerings") hadn't been a 3.5e adventure, but rather a fantasy adventure built for a new fantasy RPG? Would the Dragon subscribers still have followed them in numbers, allowing them to build upwards, or would Pathfinder have sunk like a stone? Of course, we'll never know...)

I think that part of Paizo's success is that their customers trust them, and part of that trust included not rocking the 3.5 boat that most of them were still using and enjoying and invested so heavily in.