D&D 5E Hope for an open GSL?

[Remus Lupin]

I cannot speak for harpy but I will mention as an aside that the OGL doesn't cede control of IP, though it does allow for easy sharing of some of it.

"You must spread around some experience before giving to Mark CMG again"

 

[Kalontas]

Given how much the announcements (and WotC posters on the official boards) speak about it being the game for everyone, and how it wants to unite all materials and all editions, I think it's very likely we're bound for some kind of open gaming license, if not necessarily one comparable to the old OGL.

 

[Jack99]

Maybe you're forgetting, but Mike Mearls was heavily involved in 4E, which was not open. Obviously Mike wasn't able to convince the right people at WotC that 4E should have been open. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes in open gaming, not because he has some book on his shelf, but because he spent a fair portion of his career with stuff he could only write because of the OGL. All we can hope for is that he has managed to get more clout since then.

Does 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar' have tips on how to talk to stubborn management in it?

Mearls was relatively small potatoes (at WotC) at the time when 4e was made and launched. He is now the top dog, it does make a difference with regards to how much you can convince whoever needs the convincing. There is also the matter of being able to prove that the GSL failed.

Anyway, Morrus mentioned on Twitter that he had info about 3PP, but couldn't tell us just yet. I guess is that they will have better conditions than under the 4e GSL. Will it be completely OGL? /shrug.. As long as they make a kickass game, I really don't care.

 

[TerraDave]

Its pretty clear that they are going to do everything in their power to retake the heights of RPG relevance.

An open game with out of the gate 3rd party support will help them do that. A closed game with no 3rd party support will not help them do that.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I suppose the question is this: What do you need to own/sell in order to make a "universal game"? If the goal is to reunite the warring factions in the editions wars, they'll have to strive to make something that will draw people away from what they're currently playing, and yet allow them to continue to play what they want. It seems like a very paradoxical egg to crack.

 

[Matt James]

I think we'll see a less stringent game license. I'm not sure if it will be as open as the OGL though.

 

[Kalontas]

Found an interesting quote, in one of the first L&L articles (3/22/2011):

Even a topic such as the volume of content released
per month falls into this category. Gamers who don’t
want more content can easily ignore it or disallow it in
their games. A theoretical D&D release schedule could
focus on the middle ground of the audience, while
something like the open gaming license would allow
other publishers to fill in the gaps for those who want
even more content. In many cases, the trick to keeping
everyone happy lies in areas beyond game design.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The OGL was quite amazing and I was so surprised you could get the entire game and not pay a cent. However and almost OGL would be good enough. One that gives 3PP the access they require to make products safely and build momentum. Access to 5E DDI would rock too, even if we paid X for the product then another Y to WotC to get it in DDI.
And I think we will see a better GSL but not a full OGL ala Pathfinder and Legends ATM.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The OGL was quite amazing and I was so surprised you could get the entire game and not pay a cent. However and almost OGL would be good enough. One that gives 3PP the access they require to make products safely and build momentum. Access to 5E DDI would rock too, even if we paid X for the product then another Y to WotC to get it in DDI.
And I think we will see a better GSL but not a full OGL ala Pathfinder and Legends ATM.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The one reason why I don't think we'll see an OGL as open as the 3rd edition one is that I don't think WotC would want a game that allows a 3PP to create a game like Mutants & Masterminds out of it-- a game that was based upon the rules and trappings of D&D so you got a bunch of people to buy into trying it out... but was different enough from it that you didn't have any reason to buy the D&D Player's Handbook to play it.

So this ended up being a genuine case of WotC creating a market and a marketing campaign for Green Ronin that didn't actually net them any money. Green Ronin created a 'D&D superhero game' that you didn't need D&D to run.

Any OGL or GSL in the future will keep that kind of thing shut off. And if they can't shut that kind of thing off... then I don't think they'll have another OGL/GSL.

***

That being said... there actually is one final way (as was touched on above) that I think WotC might be willing to open things up-- by charging fees to the 3PPs and/or customers to include OGL content in the DDI tools. If they could charge players like an extra .25 a month to their DDI subscription to "unlock" 3PP customized character generation content in the new Character Builder (or likewise charge fees to include new 3PP monsters into the Monster Builder) maybe that would inspire them to open up the OGL. Because at least then they get some money out of the people who don't want to buy the WotC products and buy the 3PP products instead.