D&D Blog : Dice Tricks

[triqui]

I get the sense that they are planning to include dice tricks in 5E, which gives me the further hunch that the OGL is not going to be in use. And honestly, I don't expect even a revised GSL to be useful to more than a few publishers who want to write in very limited areas of support. I figured at some point they would introduce some element(s) that would suggest which way they would go regarding the "open" licensing. This feels like it to me. We'll see.

Why a "dice trick system" can't be open?

 

[Mark CMG]

Why a "dice trick system" can't be open?

Adding of particularly new elements reminds me of how they did so in 4E which seemingly was meant to wrest IP back from the Open Gaming Community and make cloning more difficult, signs that more restrictive licensing rather than the OGL would be in use for 5E, IMO. We will see.

 

[triqui]

Adding of particularly new elements reminds me of how they did so in 4E which seemingly was meant to wrest IP back from the Open Gaming Community and make cloning more difficult, signs that more restrictive licensing rather than the OGL would be in use for 5E, IMO. We will see.

I don't see how this relates to OGL. 2e did not have more gimmicky elements than 3e, but wasn't open. Being open or not is just a matter of will, if they want to include a SRD they'll do, if they don't want to, they won't. Rerrolling d20 or adding +1d6 with action points won't effect that will, whatever one it is.

So bassically, we will see, but whatever is the result even if it is not open gaming, yout logic seems faulty. They'll go OGL or not, as a separate decission. It has nothing to do with funky dice rolls. There are several funky game systems that are Open Gaming systems. Fudge for example.

If you mean it won't be compatible with current OGL d20 3.x material... yes, I'm sure about that. It won't. It can't be compatible, given the hints they have shown us. However, that does not mean it can´t use an open gaming license.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't see how this relates to OGL. 2e did not have more gimmicky elements than 3e, but wasn't open. Being open or not is just a matter of will, if they want to include a SRD they'll do, if they don't want to, they won't. Rerrolling d20 or adding +1d6 with action points won't effect that will, whatever one it is.

Discussing why 2E wasn't open seems pointless. As to their decision to go OGL for 5E and how it will relate to the mechanics they use, it's likely the other way around. If they stick with mechanics that are already open, it won't really matter if they use the OGL since the mechanics will already be available as OGC. If they decide not to use the OGL, they will likely have to present mechanics not already available under the OGL (from WotC or otherwise) to ensure an OGL clone of 5E cannot be easily made. If they decide to use the OGL for 5E but create new dice mechanics but not release them as OGC, then using the OGL will still come off as at least somewhat restrictive.

So bassically, we will see, but whatever is the result even if it is not open gaming, yout logic seems faulty. They'll go OGL or not, as a separate decission. It has nothing to do with funky dice rolls. There are several funky game systems that are Open Gaming systems. Fudge for example.

Nothing they do in terms of 5E will be a completely separate decision from other decisions made for 5E, nor from decisions they made for 4.XE or 3.XE. I doubt WotC will use OGC from games outside of WotC much, if at all, so I am not sure that is relevant to their decision making process. Even during the 3.XE era, they barely used any OGC from other companies.

If you mean it won't be compatible with current OGL d20 3.x material... yes, I'm sure about that. It won't. It can't be compatible, given the hints they have shown us. However, that does not mean it can´t use an open gaming license.

I don't mean that though it will be interesting how much material from any previous edition will be easily compatible with 5E whether they use the OGL or not.

 

[triqui]

Discussing why 2E wasn't open seems pointless. As to their decision to go OGL for 5E and how it will relate to the mechanics they use, it's likely the other way around. If they stick with mechanics that are already open, it won't really matter if they use the OGL since the mechanics will already be available as OGC. If they decide not to use the OGL, they will likely have to present mechanics not already available under the OGL (from WotC or otherwise) to ensure an OGL clone of 5E cannot be easily made. If they decide to use the OGL for 5E but create new dice mechanics but not release them as OGC, then using the OGL will still come off as at least somewhat restrictive.

That's my point. They won't rely on mechanics already under OGL, becouse it's a new system. It's not going to be backwards compatible

Nothing they do in terms of 5E will be a completely separate decision from other decisions made for 5E, nor from decisions they made for 4.XE or 3.XE. I doubt WotC will use OGC from games outside of WotC much, if at all, so I am not sure that is relevant to their decision making process. Even during the 3.XE era, they barely used any OGC from other companies.

No, but it shows you can build an OGC license for whatever rule you make, even if it is funky. D&DN might use 3d12 and reroll any prime number, and be OGL if they want. They can even use completelly new die, and be OGL (as Fudge).

I don't mean that though it will be interesting how much material from any previous edition will be easily compatible with 5E whether they use the OGL or not.

None.

 

[Mark CMG]

That's my point. They won't rely on mechanics already under OGL, becouse it's a new system. It's not going to be backwards compatible.

Except that it's the other way around in that if they don't use the OGL, they will have no choice but to avoid using mostly mechanics that are already OGC lest someone OGL-clone a game and fill in a few spots where something isn't already OGC. We seem to agree in principle, so let's let that dog sleep.

No, but it shows you can build an OGC license for whatever rule you make, even if it is funky. D&DN might use 3d12 and reroll any prime number, and be OGL if they want. They can even use completelly new die, and be OGL (as Fudge).

Not untrue but, aside form there already being a FUDGE, if they do use the OGL (as is) then reinventing the wheel just to be different might have a higher chance to backfire on them if fans don't like something all new. We've seen such things before when they didn't want to use the OGL so using the OGL and taking that risk only leaves it for 3PP to pick up whatever mess is made (if mess it is) and rework it, essentially like handing over the keys to what is left of their game. Someone else is already driving the old model, giving away the new model by putting out something that could be primarily rejected seems like a bad idea. If they go OGL, I suspect they will utilize a fair amount of their previous game mechanics, but I think they have already let the OGL ship sail at this point.

None.

We'll see.