WotC Rumor: OGL will not be supported starting with One D&D

[Oofta]

I would say that 5E was built with a fair amount of flexibility with the design goal of allowing 3PP to integrate in. It provides a structure that allows a decent amount of options and add-ons like level up.

Of course it's not the "modular system" some people envisioned, there will never be enough flexibility for some people.

 

[delericho]

It’s kinda like once Mike was gone they started the infinite tweaking that 4e suffered from. MotM was kind of a last straw with reprinting a bunch of monsters I already have because they wanted to revise monster stat blocks.

I think that one was also motivated by a desire to deprecate "Volo's Guide to Monsters" and "Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes" - some of the lore in each of those books is at least verging on problematic these days. But that sort of revision probably didn't want to wait until 2024 (or more likely later - 2024 will be for the new core, not supplements).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Volos at least was problematic at the time it was printed; acknowledging that and then not doing it just wasn't a priority at the time.

 

[Redneckomancer]

When I hear a rumour and the source is "trust me bro", I look to see who is telling the story.

Considering that youtubers reputation, I think of the kind of person he hangs with, a consultant toxic enough to work for WOTC then throw out the rumor so that his friend can get a few extra YouTube views from the D&D fans praying WOTC fail one day.

I'm guessing this is a wild exaggeration of something out of context.

Regardless, the original OGL is all anyone needs for 5e. You don't need a new SRD just because the monsters may or may not crit.

Oh? What's his reputation? I've never heard of the guy?

 

[teitan]

Options that they provide are not proof that they only delivered a skeleton, they are proof that they delivered more than a skeleton.


Go back and read some of the writings from Ryan Dancy about the OGL. Business plan wise it's to drive sales of the core books, to get everyone playing their game so they have an audience. It's not so that WotC doesn't have to publish options, since they very well do publish options. And again, since it's a complete playable game, DMs don't "have" regardless of if there is 3pp. Like I said, we don't use 3pp in any of the many games I've been in or run, across multiple groups.

Dancey was talking about 3e, not 5e. You can’t take what Dancey says about 3e and apply it to 5e where they have literally not supplied a rule for everything like they did in 3.x era. 5e is a structure, like a skeleton is a structure. If you think a skeleton is weak then you should look into something called the first paradox of philosophy where a strong skeleton is the foundation upon which strength is built.

The design philosophy for 3e was very different to the design philosophy for 5e. There wasn’t even a system license for 5e until well after it launched whereas 3e launched with the D20 system license and SRD and OGL ready to go from day 1 and White Wolf even beat WOTC to market with the first monster book for 3e. The early 5e design diaries and follow up after launch were all about the loose nature of the game and giving it back to the DM, to have rulings, not rules, which they picked up from the OSR community. They encouraged house rules and conversions and wanted a system where this was east to do and used the old modules as their foundations in the playtest. If you could run Keep on the Borderlands as written with the 5e rules with minor adjustments they were successful. If you could run Red Hand of Doom, Tomb of Horrors, etc they were successful. Tales from the Yawning Portal demonstrates this very well as the modules are all conversions of older materials and very well done with minimal changes to the originals.

 

[teitan]

I think that one was also motivated by a desire to deprecate "Volo's Guide to Monsters" and "Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes" - some of the lore in each of those books is at least verging on problematic these days. But that sort of revision probably didn't want to wait until 2024 (or more likely later - 2024 will be for the new core, not supplements).

I’m an old grognard and I’m not sure what was problematic in either of those books to be honest. I won’t open the debate up again beyond it was a dumb move on their part so close to the new edition that is looking to be a lot more than the revision they hinted at, from a business standpoint.

 

[Blue]

Dancey was talking about 3e, not 5e.

Dancey was talking about why they did the OGL. Which is independent of system version. Which is what I was addressing, in terms of encouraging 3pp to use WotC's systems.

The design philosophy for 3e was very different to the design philosophy for 5e. There wasn’t even a system license for 5e until well after it launched whereas 3e launched with the D20 system license and SRD and OGL ready to go from day 1 and White Wolf even beat WOTC to market with the first monster book for 3e.

So what you are saying is that WotC was slower to enable 3pp? The conclusion from that is it's even less likely it was designed as just a skeleton to hang 3pp from. Which supports what I was saying.

The early 5e design diaries and follow up after launch were all about the loose nature of the game and giving it back to the DM, to have rulings, not rules, which they picked up from the OSR community. They encouraged house rules and conversions and wanted a system where this was east to do and used the old modules as their foundations in the playtest. If you could run Keep on the Borderlands as written with the 5e rules with minor adjustments they were successful. If you could run Red Hand of Doom, Tomb of Horrors, etc they were successful. Tales from the Yawning Portal demonstrates this very well as the modules are all conversions of older materials and very well done with minimal changes to the originals.

Sure, we're in agreement. However, I don't see what that has to do with making the rules a skeleton. What they did was make less of a simulation and also returned to the idea that there's a person there DMing and there's no need tohave hard rules for every corner case. That doesn't make it a skeleton.

 

[Minigiant]

Options that they provide are not proof that they only delivered a skeleton, they are proof that they delivered more than a skeleton.

You don't understand what I mean by a skeleton.

A skeleton has holes. Spaces between the bones. WOTC designed 5e to have spaces the official core rules don't cover. They'd fill some with optional rules but their intention was not to be the sole creator of the flesh. WOTC put inoffensiveness to all generations of D&D over complete dominance of content creation.

This is different from 4e and it's way of using its nonOGL self. In 4e, WOTC desired to be the main creator of flesh. When the PHB released without gnomes, half orcs, barbarian, bards, sorcerers, and druids, they planned to fill those holes later and make their flesh core.

 

[Oofta]

You don't understand what I mean by a skeleton.

A skeleton has holes. Spaces between the bones. WOTC designed 5e to have spaces the official core rules don't cover. They'd fill some with optional rules but their intention was not to be the sole creator of the flesh. WOTC put inoffensiveness to all generations of D&D over complete dominance of content creation.

This is different from 4e and it's way of using its nonOGL self. In 4e, WOTC desired to be the main creator of flesh. When the PHB released without gnomes, half orcs, barbarian, bards, sorcerers, and druids, they planned to fill those holes later and make their flesh core.

There's a difference between leaving room for rulings, customization and running the game the best way that works for each group.

With 3.x and even more 4e they tried to lock down the game ever more. They decided that was a mistake and I agree.

The game is not incomplete. It's just taken a different direction.

 

[teitan]

You don't understand what I mean by a skeleton.

A skeleton has holes. Spaces between the bones. WOTC designed 5e to have spaces the official core rules don't cover. They'd fill some with optional rules but their intention was not to be the sole creator of the flesh. WOTC put inoffensiveness to all generations of D&D over complete dominance of content creation.

This is different from 4e and it's way of using its nonOGL self. In 4e, WOTC desired to be the main creator of flesh. When the PHB released without gnomes, half orcs, barbarian, bards, sorcerers, and druids, they planned to fill those holes later and make their flesh core.

I’ll disagree with you here. They went with a more OSR approach, not inoffensiveness. That’s a horrible approach to it especially when they created vehicle rules that use coins forged from souls to fuel vehicles that consumed said souls. They designed a system that could be easily house ruled to play how you want. Not to be inoffensive.