Hypothetical question for 3pp: 5e goes OGL what would you publish?

[Morrus]

Morrus, I'll respond to your privately since answering here may cause issues with the NDA restrictions. I know I probably crossed that line already.

Thanks. I got it. That's - I hesitate to use the word, but - astonishing. I'll respect your request and not share it. I'm curious why WotC is sharing info like that with you specifically, though? (I don't doubt it it all; just wondering if you have some particular connection with Mearls that the rest of us don't?)

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Full disclosure. This conversation was old, before any playtesting material had been released. After, I found myself on the friends & family playtest, allowing me to see a version of the rules months before the open playtest started. Those were...umm...not good. They needed help, and shortly after was when Monte Cook departed. Could WOTC reverse their opinion and strip out the OGL? Perhaps. But economically, it would be suicide for WOTC to do so. They lost considerable market share to Pathfinder because of 3PP abandonment, and with the industry fragmented again with OGLs for 13th Age, Savage Worlds, and Fate Core, this is a perfect opportunity for WOTC to retake the stage with "the new standard."

Even if I hadn't received any information from WOTC regarding the future of 3PP support, DEM would still promise Amethyst for 5E. I am not a gambling man by any means. This is a safe bet.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Thanks. I got it. That's - I hesitate to use the word, but - astonishing. I'll respect your request and not share it. I'm curious why WotC is sharing info like that with you specifically, though?

Well, I did write this: http://www.livingdice.com/5870/an-open-letter-to-save-3rd-party-dungeons-and-dragons-companies/

Maybe it DID have an impact after all.

 

[darjr]

Well, OGL Next would be very cool. And if you helped make that happen, thank you. I'm not a 3pp, nor a pp of any kind but I do have a strong desire to see 5e go OGL as a consumer. And this thread rocks on toast. I love hearing about what folks might do with 5e.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Well, OGL Next would be very cool. And if you helped make that happen, thank you. I'm not a 3pp, nor a pp of any kind but I do have a strong desire to see 5e go OGL as a consumer. And this thread rocks on toast. I love hearing about what folks might do with 5e.

Enough to contribute to my kickstarter?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1894400580/amethyst-fantasy-and-technology-collide

OH COME ON; I have to try!

 

[darjr]

Sounds like you said 'Checkmate'. check. mate.

 

[Mark CMG]

Hypothetical question for 3pp: 5e goes OGL what would you publish?

Yup. But it would have to be a clean OGL and not some GSL crap. An OGL'd game begins from the understanding that partners on all sides are working toward a common goal, a systemic movement, despite some partners being major and others minor, and some experiementing with some very tangential offshoots. The GSL smacks of thinking they're doing someone a favor. I have no interest in the latter. They're either in or they're out.

Second, What products would you make?

Don't know. Probably some adventures and off-beat sourcebooks.

 

[Mark CMG]

an OGL

There is no "an" OGL. When you used that in the previous post I figured it was just quick post with no specific intent behind the "an." Now that you've used it twice, I understand the semantic intent. They either use "the" OGL or they don't. See, the problem is, you seem fine with "the" GSL (and that's all well and good for you and some few others) which they peddled as "an" OGL when they trotted it out way back when. As long as folks who seem to be in-the-know are using semantic sleight of hand like "an" OGL, then I'm fairly confident we won't be seeing WotC using THE OGL for 5E.

 

[Wicht]

There is no "an" OGL. When you used that in the previous post I figured it was just quick post with no specific intent behind the "an." Now that you've used it twice, I understand the semantic intent. They either use "the" OGL or they don't. See, the problem is, you seem fine with "the" GSL (and that's all well and good for you and some few others) which they peddled as "an" OGL when they trotted it out way back when. As long as folks who seem to be in-the-know are using semantic sleight of hand like "an" OGL, then I'm fairly confident we won't be seeing WotC using THE OGL for 5E.

Thats a concern I would have (and thought something similar). Though technically, they could do an updated OGL and it would be "an" OGL, but unless it is even more lenient than the first, there is no point in releasing or utilizing such a thing.

Here's hoping its just out and out, "the" OGL.

 

[Mark CMG]

Thats a concern I would have (and thought something similar). Though technically, they could do an updated OGL and it would be "an" OGL, but unless it is even more lenient than the first, there is no point in releasing or utilizing such a thing.

Here's hoping its just out and out, "the" OGL.

I see what you're saying, and I hope you are right, but they seemed to be careful last time to avoid saying "a version of the OGL" which would imply just updating the number. Heck, they have lots of experience with forcefeeding us the word "iteration" which could also be used if they plan to go with THE OGL but simply wanted to adjust the number. For those reasons, I'm not closing the door on the possibility that they might use the OGL but I am less confident based on past semantic tricks and the use of the "an" above by someone who seems to have actually discussed things behind closed doors.