D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[Oni]

These are the types of anecdotes that always come up when the subject of an OGL is raised. But how many buyers are like you? A few dozen? A few hundred? A few thousand? Compared to selling a few million PHB's (WOTC's numbers), I suspect we're just a rounding error.

[BTW, since WOTC does not release detailed data on sales, we're left with anecdotes. But the plural of anecdote is not data.]

I will agree that the more devoted fans are more likley to buy the add-on products - splat books and the like. But again, I think we overestimate our importance to WOTC's bottom line.

The more devoted fans are the ones that drive the hobby. They're the ones that have the most influence with what games their groups play (especially since the most dedicated person at the table is probably the one running the games). They're the ones introducing new players to their game of choice and expanding the hobby. They're the ones responsible for the sense of community that surrounds a game and a game company, they're the ones responsible for the tenor of the conversation. Positivity in the community spills out into the wider players base, but so does vitriol.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As for a new OGL somehow bringing disgruntled buyers back, how many of the millions of 3.x PHB's sold were purchased by folks who even know what an OGL is? One percent? Less?

What percent of the market knows what an SRD is? Not everyone, but a much larger portion, I expect.

The d20 hypertext SRD is an enormously useful and popular tool. So is the PFSRD, even though I don't really play PF. I barely care about the 3rd party market, but free online access to the rules I need? That matters.

Furthermore, I suspect that most people who play or who have considered playing 4e are aware of D&D Insider, and that the idea of subscription fees to access content that in other circumstances has been given away for free is a significant factor in how people make decisions.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I thimk an OGL for Core (at least PHB) would be wonderful, if they want an Insider subscription thing for Core + everything else like 4E than fine do that too.

But they lose little by having some of Core (at least the PHB) being OGL.

 

[Gadget]

Personally, I couldn't care less if 5e has an OGL, and I think they would be foolish if they did. It is the quality of system that moves my interests, not some quasi-religious belief in 'open-content'. Yes, having the SRD freely available online is nice and convenient, but I don't think WOTC has some moral obligation to do so. Is it a good business decision? No, I don't think that an OGL like 3e would be, maybe something more restrictive yet more open than 4e's GSL would be the way to go. Maybe an 'app-store' like environment would work. I can't say.

 

[Morrus]

Personally, I couldn't care less if 5e has an OGL, and I think they would be foolish if they did. It is the quality of system that moves my interests, not some quasi-religious belief in 'open-content'. Yes, having the SRD freely available online is nice and convenient, but I don't think WOTC has some moral obligation to do so. Is it a good business decision? No, I don't think that an OGL like 3e would be, maybe something more restrictive yet more open than 4e's GSL would be the way to go. Maybe an 'app-store' like environment would work. I can't say.

It's not a quasi religious belief.

It's about a game having a wide and varied base of support material. WorC can only do so much, and generally had to focus on a specific demographic (usually the beginner DM and extra player options).

3PPs can provide, for example, adventure paths for experienced DMs - stuff that WotC could never sell in large enough quantities, but a few thousand sales is enough for a small company, and it means that type of material is available for those who seek it.

Ryan Dancey talked a lot about this stuff. It's nothing to do with abstract concepts - it is to do within network externality, large support bases, and in unparalleled range and depth of content.

And a game with those features? It sells well. A D&D with a massive range of varied support material and adventures will - in theory - sell better than one without.

Of course, there's disagreement about how effective it is. But characterising it as "quasi-religious beliefs" just displays that you don't really understand the conversation you're participating in.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally, I couldn't care less if 5e has an OGL, and I think they would be foolish if they did. It is the quality of system that moves my interests, not some quasi-religious belief in 'open-content'.

The quality of the game itself is what matters, sure. But doesn't the license influence what the designers do? Having the content open and available for modification means that if something needs to be fixed or rewritten, it will be done quickly by fans. This holds the designers' feet to the fire. Certainly, if 4e had been open, some fan would have rewritten the game to exclude the martial power source or created versions of all the classic classes and released it and circulated it widely and maybe even made money off of it within a week after the game was out. People would have rewritten the rules until they worked for every major segment of the target audience (as evidenced by the plethora of 3.X mods online and published d20 system games). To outcompete that, WotC would have been forced to release a better written and better edited product designed for a larger portion of its fanbase.

And Pathfinder wouldn't have taken over the market.

The rules don't exist within a vacuum.

 

[Fifth Element]

Certainly, if 4e had been open, some fan would have rewritten the game to exclude the martial power source or created versions of all the classic classes and released it and circulated it widely and maybe even made money off of it within a week after the game was out.

What, you mean like this?

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Open Gaming Next

If D&DNext is supposed to distill the best features from all editions, then it'd make sense to feature the OGL (or something similar), since that was a key feature of the 3e renaissance.

Call it OGN...Open Gaming Next.

I suppose the D&D designers themselves are for Open Gaming, as evidenced in quotes by Mearls and Cordell. If D&DNext doesn't do Open Gaming, then it will be because the corporate/lawyer-types squelched it. Sometimes large publicly-traded corporations squelch that kind of freedom and goodwill just "because".

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I believe there will be some sort of license available, but how restrictive remains to be seen. However, from the sounds of the current rules, third party publishers could easily publish compatible material for this edition under the OGL, just as some did for 4E without using the GSL.

 

[Oni]

I believe there will be some sort of license available, but how restrictive remains to be seen. However, from the sounds of the current rules, third party publishers could easily publish compatible material for this edition under the OGL, just as some did for 4E without using the GSL.

This brings up another good point. Because game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and because the OGL opened up so much of the terminology and content of D&D (that's what made all the retro-clones possible), it seems like the most intelligent thing to do would be embrace the situation, rather than try to fight it.