D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Would it be possible to create an open license to publish D&D modules and original settings - but leave the rules of the game untouched? That would work for me, at least.

AFAIK there is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing this already, as long as you don't screw with WoTC's trademarks (beholders, mind flayers, etc).

 

[Nylanfs]

Did I miss anything on the license front over the last couple of weeks of getting ready for in-laws to come for Thanksgiving?

 

[Morrus]

Did I miss anything on the license front over the last couple of weeks of getting ready for in-laws to come for Thanksgiving?

Nope!

 

[Michael Morris]

WotC always takes the last couple weeks of the year off so if we haven't heard anything before the 19th we probably won't hear anything until the new year.

 

[MechaPilot]

But, it avoids the OGL glut and stuff like BoEF.

This isn't anything new, it's been done since the TSR days with Judge's Guild up to 4e with Gale Force 9. It may create more bureaucracy, but it gives them the creative control they want, and while it gives us less quantity, we get more quality (or at least, that's the idea).

Why is avoiding stuff like the BoEF and giving WotC creative control over 3rd party products considered a good thing?

I mean, I think that the bulk of the mechanics in the BoEF are crap, but the non-rules parts of it makes for a good book about handling sex and sexuality in D&D. Besides, from everything I've heard about the BoVD, it's not as if WotC has handled adult content any better than third-parties have.

Regarding creative control, do we really want WotC poking their noses in third-party settings? My setting requires humanoid sacrifice to successfully raise the dead. If I were going to try to publish it under the OGL, I don't want WotC telling me the requirement to trade a soul for a soul isn't "Age 12+" enough for them.

 

[Agamon]

Why is avoiding stuff like the BoEF and giving WotC creative control over 3rd party products considered a good thing?

(whoa, blast from the past)

I didn't ascribe any goodness or badness in my post, just guessing as to why WotC is doing what they are doing from their prospective.

 

[Morrus]

Why is avoiding stuff like the BoEF and giving WotC creative control over 3rd party products considered a good thing?

It's not about being a good thing or a bad thing; it's about it being in WotC's interests. There's no moral part to that equation, or deserving part, or anything.

What's in their interests? I guess that's up to them to decide. We may disagree, but it's their decision to make. As regards this subject, presumably they want to control how their brand is viewed based on the demographics of the people they wish to sell their core products to.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why is avoiding stuff like the BoEF and giving WotC creative control over 3rd party products considered a good thing?

Ironicly enough the BoEF is a lesser example in my mind (although it is the one known to piss off wotc) my thing is that SOMEONE controlling quality is good, and free for all is bad... fo me in particular, for the game as a whole, and for WotC...

I mean, I think that the bulk of the mechanics in the BoEF are crap, but the non-rules parts of it makes for a good book about handling sex and sexuality in D&D.

could not agree more, infact some of there spells may get hombrew updated in my worlds...

Besides, from everything I've heard about the BoVD, it's not as if WotC has handled adult content any better than third-parties have.

I think BOTH BoVD and BoED get a bad wrap, there is good and bad, but light years ahead of Mongoose publishing, and better then some sword and sorcery stuff...

Regarding creative control, do we really want WotC poking their noses in third-party settings?

only in so far as to how they sell them..

My setting requires humanoid sacrifice to successfully raise the dead. If I were going to try to publish it under the OGL, I don't want WotC telling me the requirement to trade a soul for a soul isn't "Age 12+" enough for them.

I will admit that may be annoying, but I wish someone had told other publishers that having a feat that increased the AoE of an attack spell to 1 mile, or that a 3rd level ranger spell that enhanced arrows to deal +1d6 per 2 caster levels of lighting damage needed a duration less then perment until fired, or that someone explained that a spell that is magic missle but requires a touch attack and has +1 missle and no cap on missle # is broken...I wish someone told some one that metamagic feats that 'lace' damage types into spells for free were a problem...

game I ran, the lighting arrow thing came up, and the PC took weeks of down time casting and had dozens of longbow arrows that did 1d8+x+4d6 damage

game I played in, someone else took the magic missle spell from above, was an arcane trickster (so seak attack) then took the lace spell thing from the other book... so with 11 caster level was doing 7 missle, each was a touch attack that dealt 1d4+1 fire damge +1d6 Acid damage and he could sneak attack (I think it was +3 or 4d6) so his 1 first level spell would be 7d4+7+28d6...

The game I came into with a new group that switched from "ANy book" to "Core+ Complete WotC only" had a story about a 9+ crit range character with a x4 crit and dealing +X extra dice on a crit with multi attacks in around by combing books, I don't know details but that + some 3rd party spell got that nixed right before I showed up...

 

[MechaPilot]

(whoa, blast from the past)

I didn't ascribe any goodness or badness in my post, just guessing as to why WotC is doing what they are doing from their prospective.

Sorry about that then. The way I read it, I thought there was the implication that it was a good thing.

 

[MechaPilot]

I will admit that may be annoying, but I wish someone had told other publishers that having a feat that increased the AoE of an attack spell to 1 mile, or that a 3rd level ranger spell that enhanced arrows to deal +1d6 per 2 caster levels of lighting damage needed a duration less then perment until fired, or that someone explained that a spell that is magic missle but requires a touch attack and has +1 missle and no cap on missle # is broken...I wish someone told some one that metamagic feats that 'lace' damage types into spells for free were a problem...

game I ran, the lighting arrow thing came up, and the PC took weeks of down time casting and had dozens of longbow arrows that did 1d8+x+4d6 damage

game I played in, someone else took the magic missle spell from above, was an arcane trickster (so seak attack) then took the lace spell thing from the other book... so with 11 caster level was doing 7 missle, each was a touch attack that dealt 1d4+1 fire damge +1d6 Acid damage and he could sneak attack (I think it was +3 or 4d6) so his 1 first level spell would be 7d4+7+28d6...

The game I came into with a new group that switched from "ANy book" to "Core+ Complete WotC only" had a story about a 9+ crit range character with a x4 crit and dealing +X extra dice on a crit with multi attacks in around by combing books, I don't know details but that + some 3rd party spell got that nixed right before I showed up...

It's interesting that you bring up the rules the way you did, because I don't think that creative control by WotC will result in curtailing the problem of broken 3rd party rules. I'm more inclined to think that it will lead to censoring the fluff that applies to the rules than it will the rules themselves. The soul-for-a-soul rule from my setting is one of those cases where the rule consists almost entirely of fluff because it's not quantified with a numerical modifier like a bonus/penalty or increase in a multiplier.