The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[dave2008]

Yes, it's technically possible they will reverse course. But they came out with pretty specific information for that to be in the cards.

Or they could stay the course, generally, and make things very easy for everyone.

 

[mamba]

So, has anyone seen the license yet?

no one who can discuss it here

 

[mamba]

also think about how spoiled we are with the OGL... if TSR put out the GSL in 97 (much more restrictive then this) and had a fee if someone made 250,000 or more... we would have called it amazing and the best thing ever.

back then it would have been the best thing up to that point, not so much these days

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, if you are only thinking like a consumer.

I (and most of us on here) are just consumers...

As I think back to what I would not have had (relics and rituals, some 3rd party Prestige classes and the scarred lands setting, the laminated serrated weapon qualities) and what that would have meant (no pathfinder split) and guess what that would mean for 5e (an updated fixed 4e instead of going back to 3e style to try to compromise to get PF players back) then as a consumer I personally feel that is a bit of a wash... and right now I would prefer to be doing either 4e, or have 5e be an update to 4e.

HOWEVER then I think about Mutants and Masterminds... and that I love it working with D&D logic. that MIGHT tip the scale back to wanting the OGL...

However THEN I think that the creators that spent the last 20ish years making D&D adjacent products might have made there own systems, and as such right now we would have more verity... and that feels like it MIGHT tip the scale back to better without it.

So as a Consumer, I don't know if my gaming is better or worse for it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

back then it would have been the best thing up to that point, not so much these days

right that was my point this isn't bad, it's just not as good as things that came before...

it's like last night if I had (and I wish I had) gone to the steak house that costs me $100 everytime I go for a jucy perfect huge stake with a cool salad and vegies and a potato so big I can't understand where they get them...
then tonight I go to the local pizza place I like... is the pizza anywhere near as good as that steak... no not by a mile. Do I like the pizza yes. Is the pizza evaluated on it's own good, yes it is.

(edit: I am not upset I had left overs last night and am planing on making home made pasta tonight...)

 

[Reynard]

Or they could stay the course, generally, and make things very easy for everyone.

Registering products is an encumbrance. Reporting earnings is an encumbrance. Paying royalties is an encumbrance. How is staying the course they have laid out "very easy for everyone" compared to the status quo?

 

[darjr]

I’ve heard WotC and then Hasbro has been killing D&D for 22 years now.

 

[Greg Benage]

Here's the thing: WotC isn't going to produce a Dungeons of Drakkenheim (just as an example). Try to go the GSL-like route reduces the probability anyone else will.

I share that concern, but let's probe it a bit. That particular Kickstarter campaign brought in about $1.25 million with 13,000+ backers. Kickstarter takes 5% (someone correct me if that's wrong). @Morrus suggests we could double that to estimate total sales, and let's assume those additional sales are all print products through traditional distribution channels at a 60% discount, just to make this scenario as unfavorable for the publisher as we can.

So total (net) sales are 1.25*.95 + 1.25*.4 = $1,687,500, and we'll just assume that's all in one year. That's $937,500 above the royalty threshold. Let's further assume that the royalty isn't even graduated--it's a flat 10% of net sales above the threshold, so that's a debit of $93,750 on the campaign. If you're the publisher, would you still do the campaign?

If we assume Ghostfire wants a 60% gross margin (that's what FFG wanted back in the dark times pre-Kickstarter), that means their budget to produce the book and add-ons for the campaign is about $675,000. Can you find room in that budget for a $93,750 royalty? I know production standards and associated costs are much higher than they were when I was in the game, but it seems like you definitely can? You'd rather keep the money, obviously, but it doesn't seem like that transforms a viable campaign into a non-viable one.

I don't think Wizards is going to go with a flat 10% royalty on net sales above $750,000. But even if they did, I think there'd be reason to expect that campaigns such as Dungeons of Drakkenheim would still happen.

ETA: corrected a math error.

 

[mamba]

right that was my point this isn't bad, it's just not as good as things that came before...

imo it is pretty bad. We were here / close to here with the GST and that definitely did not work out, this is not much better

We will know more soon, but for now that is my take on it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

imo it is pretty bad. We were here / close to here with the GST and that definitely did not work out, this is not much better

We will know more soon, but for now that is my take on it.

I don't think the 4e GSL was that bad on it's own either.