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

[UngainlyTitan]

First, I don't think Mearls was the best person for PR at times. Second, I think a lot of people took what was said and blew it way out of proportion. They did clarify in the interview that I linked to, it was more about optional rules, which was included, ToTM or grid, rulings over rules.

I read many of the same articles and interviews at the time as everyone else. I think they more-or-less delivered on the core essentials. I guess I just don't see why this has caused such grief even after all these years. We have a reasonably flexible system that people can, and do, tweak. We have optional rules in the DMG, a ton of optional modules from 3PP. I simply don't know what people expected other than the oft repeated "more" or some mythical system that would be a half dozen completely different games rolled into one.

I think that Mike Mearls had a tendency to let his mouth run on somewhat. In that, he would think of something cool and blurt it out rather than sticking to the script.

 

[MockingBird]

I just vaguely remember reading somewhere, how D&DNext was going to allow you to play with character sheets from 1e or 3e or 4e or the new sheet all at the same table. I may be miss remembering but I could've swore I read that.

 

[darjr]

I just vaguely remember reading somewhere, how D&DNext was going to allow you to play with character sheets from 1e or 3e or 4e or the new sheet all at the same table. I may be miss remembering but I could've swore I read that.

They said they did that at the office. That ideally they’d like next to feel like that kind of essence of D&D.

 

[Umbran]

In any case, water under the bridge. People shouldn't overpromise at the start of a project because some goals, while admirable, are simply not achievable. At least not to the extent that some people want.

There was some character to the early communications that felt like they were treating with us more like friendly fellow geeks who want to hear about their enthusiasm, and not so much worried about the specifics of the results, when in fact we are... not nearly so friendly as all that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was some character to the early communications that felt like they were treating with us more like friendly fellow geeks who want to hear about their enthusiasm, and not so much worried about the specifics of the results, when in fact we are... not nearly so friendly as all that.

Yeah. At the end of the day, they're still asking us to give them money for stuff they produce. And everything they say is an official statement, as far as many people are concerned.

 

[Oofta]

I think that Mike Mearls had a tendency to let his mouth run on somewhat. In that, he would think of something cool and blurt it out rather than sticking to the script.

Yeah, I seem to remember Mearls saying something about being able to play every edition with D&D Next. Like, really? How would that possibly work and why would you want to? How do you encompass 4E's largely incompatible playstyle and magic item assumptions with 3.x's complex builds, stacking bonuses and monster resistances with earlier edition's looser rules not to mention things like THAC0?

If I want to play a game of 3.x for nostalgia purposes I can just pull out my old books. Oh, and my old "how many bonuses do I have" sheet along with the double handful of dice I needed (IIRC one of my PCs needed more than 50 depending on typical buffs) for a full attack. As long as we either quit by level 13 or so or ban casters from getting to that level it might even be fun.

But a version that is truly compatible with all other versions? Not going to happen. Especially not going to happen after they decided (correctly, I think) that bounded accuracy was going to be a thing. I will say that I can capture the essence of my pre-4E PCs reasonably well and you can make minor changes/notes to old modules and play them.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah. At the end of the day, they're still asking us to give them money for stuff they produce. And everything they say is an official statement, as far as many people are concerned.

And some folks still wonder why game designers don't come to sites like ours to talk about their games.

It is, as the Admiral said, a trap.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And some folks still wonder why game designers don't come to sites like ours to talk about their games.

It is, as the Admiral said, a trap.

I don't wonder. I just think they should make more official statements, in a foreword or sidebar of the product preferably.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't wonder. I just think they should make more official statements, in a foreword or sidebar of the product preferably.

Like DnDBeyond perhaps?

 

[Umbran]

I don't wonder. I just think they should make more official statements, in a foreword or sidebar of the product preferably.

I think most "official statements" are still a trap, if you aren't creating a game with very focused intent.

Official statements or notes on designer's intent can make sense in, say, a PbtA game, or a FitD game, where the scope of character designs and playstyles is intentionally strictly limited, as the statements can be very helpful to make those strict limits obvious to players.

If, like D&D, you don't intend to place those limits, those statements will always clash with people's experience, and thus make the designers look foolish.

Games with much more broad intent, like D&D, are better suited by something that even the 3rd party publishers tend to avoid - style guides. More comprehensive discussion on how to get the system to do X, or Y, or Z. To be useful, the scope of these discussion must be much larger than what can be delivered in a foreword or sidebar.

I think, honestly, several of WotC's "setting + adventure" products - like Saltmarsh, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and others, are sort of attempts to do this. But both WotC and the market have cared more about setting canon than "how to do a cool Spelljamming campaign" or "how to do horror" or "how to do adventure in war" or the like.

Missed opportunity, there.