D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Umbran]

The problem is that that's even more restrictive than the GSL, at least in terms of print products.

You seem to be confusing the licensing model with the license itself. We haven't talked about the terms of the license - we've only discussed how one might become licensed. So let's not make claims about how restrictive it is once you have it.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that system, but it gets away from the entire point of an open license - that it's open in the first place.

Open is a means, not an end. If there is nothing inherently wrong with the system, then it should be on the table to be considered.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I theory does it matter if it is an open or closed license as long as it lets 3rd party make what we want?

 

[Agamon]

"A lot of time and resources" and "upset 3PPP" sounds like something different than what we're seeing so far. It's not about WotC allowing companies to apply to release something for them, it's WotC wanting something made (like minis or adventures for their Tyranny of Dragons) and getting a 3rd party to make it for them.

I'm not arguing against an OGL, if WotC does it, good on them. We'll have to wait and see if they do. So far, it's just been outsourcing, though.

 

[Umbran]

I theory does it matter if it is an open or closed license as long as it lets 3rd party make what we want?

Really. So, let us be creative...

Imagine... WotCstarter!

You get to make a pitch for a product. Fans/customers/subscribers vote on pitches. Winner gets a license to make the described product. Not "open" by any stretch of the imagination, but it would mean things *we* want get made. Maybe it is a setting. Maybe it is an adventure. Maybe it is an adventure path. Maybe it is software....

 

[jsaving]

A negotiated license isn't something that anyone, WotC or third-party publisher, would want. Strictly speaking, that creates a large amount of work for everyone involved, with no real benefit.

I agree. Adventures are small potatoes for WotC but can serve a valuable advertising purpose in encouraging gamers to pick up copies of the core books, which is where WotC gets the vast bulk of its D&D revenue. Part of the genius of the OGL was to foster a vibrant third-party adventure marketplace where a large number of freewheeling publishers each did their best to compete for scarce gamers' dollars, funneling people toward the core books and enabling WotC designers to focus their energies on the higher-margin core-book market. How is a vibrant third-party marketplace going to happen if firms know in advance that their products might be blocked by WotC for any number of reasons unrelated to quality? And how are WotC designers going to be freed to focus on core-book issues if they're constantly micro-managing third-party adventures?

I do sympathize with the concern that, under the 3e setup, some local gaming stores bought too many copies of low-quality adventures and ended up stuck with a lot of inventory they couldn't move. But that's always a risk for vendors of any type in our market-based economy, and hardly a reason to decree that most of those products shouldn't have been allowed to hit the marketplace in the first place.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

In my mind, the biggest advantage of the OGL isn't about third party publishers creating supporting content (thought that is nice), but for fans to create and distribute content as needed with the confidence that they aren't doing anything illegal. Under the OGL, I could create an slightly modified version of the Barbarian and post it online, or build a few custom spells, or even create a spellbook webapp using official content. Not for profit, but because I think it would benefit me and the community.

 

[darjr]

yea, I think Jeff nailed it.

 

[tomBitonti]

Seems to me that by restricting the licenses, WotC can potentially obtain a number of benefits:

Screen out the small fry and less than serious proposals.

Maintain a level of quality in the product family.

Provide incentives to potential licensees by helping to prop up their margins (by limiting competition).

Give them more room for strategic partnerships (partner A covers segment a, partner B covers segment b, &etc).

That is not to say there aren't downsides: My pointing out potential benefits does not remove potential drawbacks.

And these are potential: As in many matters, WotC's execution will determine how much of the potential is achieved.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think the best option would be negotiated contracts with companies that want to produce products. However, the process should be most a formality and as easy as possible. But at least enough to weed out random products.

This needs to be combined with a lax fan policy that pretty much says you can go ahead and post anything online as long as it doesn't reprint large sections of the book and it isn't for sale.

I do think that a completely open license is a bad idea. Especially one that allows someone to reprint all the rules.

 

[Mistwell]

These all seems like a moot point.

You can reproduce enough of the game using the existing OGL, that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.