D&D 5E 5E and the OGL

[Morrus]

This brings up another good point. Because game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and because the OGL opened up so much of the terminology and content of D&D (that's what made all the retro-clones possible), it seems like the most intelligent thing to do would be embrace the situation, rather than try to fight it.

The licenses that provided access to restricted brand identity were the d20 STL and the GSL.

The advantage of these licenses is that you could specifically place brands in your cover. So our ZEITGEIST AP gets to clearly declare that it's 4E compatible, complete with D&D logo.

That sort of stuff isn't available under just the OGL, and is protected by trademark.

 

[Alzrius]

I do think that Fifth Edition should use the OGL...but I don't think it will.

WotC has clearly learned something from their past mistakes (particularly where customer relations are concerned), but there's still a lot of ground for them to cover. In particular, my sense of them (which has no inside track whatsoever) is that the people who make the decisions regarding Open Gaming still find it suspicious and untrustworthy.

I think that WotC, as a whole, still doesn't grok the concept of just giving huge portions of its materials out to anyway who wants it, in perpetuity. They still see the downsides as concrete and immediate and the benefits as intangible and elusive. I think they understand that a not-insignificant portion of their fans wants open gaming, but they'll try and placate us with a half-measure; a new license that allows for some openness while still have greater restrictions than the OGL did - it'll be the GSL ver 2.0.

I hope I'm wrong, and WotC makes Fifth Edition OGL. But I doubt it.

 

[Gadget]

It's not a quasi religious belief.

You could have fooled me by the way people here bang on about it!

It's about a game having a wide and varied base of support material. WorC can only do so much, and generally had to focus on a specific demographic (usually the beginner DM and extra player options).

3PPs can provide, for example, adventure paths for experienced DMs - stuff that WotC could never sell in large enough quantities, but a few thousand sales is enough for a small company, and it means that type of material is available for those who seek it.

Ryan Dancey talked a lot about this stuff. It's nothing to do with abstract concepts - it is to do within network externality, large support bases, and in unparalleled range and depth of content.

And a game with those features? It sells well. A D&D with a massive range of varied support material and adventures will - in theory - sell better than one without.

I am very familiar with Ryan Dancey's 'network externalities' method thank you very much. It still remains in doubt how much of an affect this had on WOTC's bottom line. Mainly, it seems to be that it opened up opportunities for the little guy to make a buck off of D&D, in addition to servicing the customer in ways that were too niche for WOTC to go after. The thing is, it also opened up the door for people to make virtually their own games on the back of D&D and this really didn't help WOTC at all. And that's even before Pathfinder came into the picture. It's not exactly a good idea to give potential competitors the keys to the store (unless you are closing the store and abandoning the business completely.

Of course, there's disagreement about how effective it is. But characterising it as "quasi-religious beliefs" just displays that you don't really understand the conversation you're participating in.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I post something that disagrees with your position.

 

[Morrus]

I am very familiar with Ryan Dancey's 'network externalities' method thank you very much.

Then, I apologise. When you characterized it as a "quasi-religious belief" it gave me the opposite impression; so I considered that an opportunity to explain the principle.

It still remains in doubt how much of an affect this had on WOTC's bottom line.

Indeed. As I said earlier, the effectiveness is open to debate.

Mainly, it seems to be that it opened up opportunities for the little guy to make a buck off of D&D, in addition to servicing the customer in ways that were too niche for WOTC to go after.

It did both of these things, yep.

The thing is, it also opened up the door for people to make virtually their own games on the back of D&D and this really didn't help WOTC at all. And that's even before Pathfinder came into the picture.

I agree. I've argued before that the OGL created WotC's biggest competitor.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I post something that disagrees with your position.

My TARDIS doesn't work yet! At the time of posting I was under the impression you weren't familiar with the subject matter.

I stand corrected.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally, I couldn't care less if 5e has an OGL, and I think they would be foolish if they did.
... Is it a good business decision? No, I don't think that an OGL like 3e would be, maybe something more restrictive yet more open than 4e's GSL would be the way to go. ... I can't say.

It's a thorny question. The OGL gave would-be competitors and new operators a chance to cash in on the popularity of D&D, which meant they had a reason to produce complementary goods (adventures, supplements, compatible d20 games, etc) instead of competing directly with WotC. It created 'partners' in a sense. It worked really well, making d20 the center of the RPG universe.

The problem came when they tried to move D&D on. The same incentives still applied - hitching your wagon to the d20 team was still a good deal for the 3pp, for all the same reasons it had been. It was still inextricably linked to the D&D cachet, even if it didn't officially carry the name-plate.

And, as with every rev-roll, there was the inevitable back-lash. That created a golden opportunity for open-source partners to go back to being competition, which they did, particularly Paizo with Pathfinder.

If 5e in any way displeases 3.x fans, they'll stay with Pathfinder, because the OGL lets them keep on getting new stuff for it. If Pathfinder runs into trouble, there'll be other retro-clones. If the 5e doesn't offer 3pp's the same benefits as the OGL, they won't jump on board, either. That's what happened to 4e, nothing will stop it from happening to 5e if it makes the same mistakes.

I can think of two things that might work for 5e: 1) be 3.9, use the OGL as the basis, put out a 5e SRD that's about as different from the 3.5 SRD as it was from the 3.0 SRD, and cater first and foremost to the 3.5/Pathfinder set. 2) Create a new OGL/SRD, that opens up more of the D&D trademarks & IP, let 5e 3pps slap "D&D" right on their stuff, with the OGL already established, giving them /more/ is the only way to win them over, and get them back to supporting D&D with complementary products rather than going head-to-head with it.

 

[Janaxstrus]

They may not NEED OGL, but they do NEED outside support.

They need to get someone putting out some serious adventure paths and stand alone adventures. It's not their strength, to put it mildly.

Someone correct me if I am not remembering correctly, but wasn't a requirement of the 4e license that they not put out new materials for the 3.5 game in order to get the best licensing? If that is/was the case, that needs to be done away with if they want some of the best adventure designers in the business, with a loyal following already built in.

 

[Henry]

You could have fooled me by the way people here bang on about it!

Yea, and though I walk through the valley of Healing Surges, I shall fear no Encounter Power; for thy Vancian Magic and thy Saving Throw they comfort me...

I am very familiar with Ryan Dancey's 'network externalities' method thank you very much. It still remains in doubt how much of an affect this had on WOTC's bottom line. Mainly, it seems to be that it opened up opportunities for the little guy to make a buck off of D&D, in addition to servicing the customer in ways that were too niche for WOTC to go after. The thing is, it also opened up the door for people to make virtually their own games on the back of D&D and this really didn't help WOTC at all. And that's even before Pathfinder came into the picture.

Here's the thing: IMO they don't have a hope of turning the heads of ANY of the Old-School Renaissance crowd, OR the Pathfinder crowd without using the OGL; those ladies and gents already have open access to material they like, and other publishers willing to offer variants for that material for them to consume, thanks to said license.

What's the importance of the license? You're correct, the majority haven't a clue what the OGL means to them; however, most every one of those groups have one or two die-hards, "proselytizers" (see, it is a religion when you think about it!) who actively do know and appreciate the OGL; they're usually the hard-core rules monkeys or DMs who use open content to expand options for their game; who dream of being amateur publishers themselves; who consume the high-quality 3PP content like Paizo, or Legendary Games or Frog God games, and who use open content to teach or introduce new players to their groups. These are the guys who grow the RPG community through grass roots, the "network", and whom WotC is currently actively trying to court favor with.

I still ask: If the loss of the people who moved to OSR games and 3E-based games isn't very significant to WotC's bottom line, then why the press releases specifically designed to court mechanics and concepts these groups prefer? Why the announcement only two and a half years in that a new edition is coming? Why the push for 4E Essentials barely a year and a half after initial release? Why the push for unification of the player base? To me the only answer that makes sense is that WotC is concerned with D&D's sales, and REALLY needs to get as many players past and present under one banner as possible; they don't like a fractured market any more than we consumers do. Me, I'd like to be able to get everyone appreciating every version for D&D for what it offers. Even better, but a very tall order, is getting the CURRENT version of D&D able to include ALL versions of D&D in its wheelhouse through rules modules, so to new players, we're not playing "Pathfinder" or "Swords and Wizardry" and confusing the heck out of them -- we're playing "D&D."

It's not exactly a good idea to give potential competitors the keys to the store (unless you are closing the store and abandoning the business completely.

Gilette thought it an awesome idea to give away the shavers; we pay through the nose for replacement blades, and it makes 'em money. Offer awesome products for free that drive people back to your core products, and you'll make money. Paizo repeatedly says their strategy (Ryan Dancey's strategy, according to Lisa Stevens) makes Paizo successful; their products don't drive people back to D&D, it drives them to the Pathfinder core books. 3rd party publishers are also driving sales to Pathfinder core books.

Savage Worlds seems to have almost the reverse philosophy; offer the rules cheap or free, and it drives people to their settings and tools. Heck, I own at least three copies of their Explorer's Edition, because I use it to teach people the system so they want to go off and buy it on their own.

Please your proselytizers, and they'll sell it for you; it's something that Coca-Cola or Proctor and Gamble just don't have going for them like RPG companies do. I've never met a person hounding me to try Crest toothpaste or Mello Yellow soft drink just because they like it. Autos are one market I've seen with similar enthusiasts, though; hobbyists who love Fords, or BMWs, will extoll their favorite car's virtues until you agree to test drive one. If an auto enthusiast feels taken care of, they'll work so hard to sell you on their favorite car, they act like they work for the company.

To me, that's why the OGL is as important as it is; without it, the die-hards just aren't coming back, and the changes away from several key 4E mechanics risk driving 4E enthusiasts just as well.

 

[MacMathan]

Sadly I think you are correct about the no-win scenario WotC is in due to the OGL.

Great for a hobby terrible for a business, I will always challenge people to find a large business that would or has successfully done something like the OGL to the extreme it was carried out to in 3e.

The OGL may forever slow down the evolution of DnD. There will never be support for a mechanically system without severe fragmentation. I postulate that if the OGL had existed in the 1e days we would have never made it to 3e or possibly even 2e. I guess the proof will come if Paizo ever advances PF in a mechanically significant way.

The OSR crowd is basically self supporting as a hobby and doesn't need WotC or even PF/3e or 2e for that matter they never came forward in most cases. They have awesome products put out for free basically.

3rd party people have very little reason to ever leave the OGL, they will never get a better deal. IMO WotCs only hope is an app store approach that is very modern and digital. This allows integration with online tools making the subscription more valuable and appealing while allowing quality control and preventing the 5e equivalent of PF from arising.

Maybe that will allow sufficient profitability to keep from having to crank out editions every 5 years or so.

 

[mudbunny]

I think that it is highly unlikely that Next will have the OGL, or something as open.

However, I think that it will have a license of some sort that will not be nearly as restrictive as the GSL was.

If only because I think that there is a significant non-zero number of people who will not buy the books of there is not some type of license allowing use of the contents by a 3PP.

 

[Henry]

The OGL may forever slow down the evolution of DnD. There will never be support for a mechanically system without severe fragmentation. I postulate that if the OGL had existed in the 1e days we would have never made it to 3e or possibly even 2e. I guess the proof will come if Paizo ever advances PF in a mechanically significant way.

Actually I differ on this point; I posit that we already HAD something like the OGL in the 70's and 80's, but it was never set into a license. You have to remember that the origins of the RPG hobby are the origins of a bunch of tinkers; we had individual groups sharing house rules to and fro; we had Alarums and Excursions; we had Role-aids and the Arduin Grimoire. Eventually, most of these were sued against, when the Blumes and Lorraine Williams were in their "sue everybody" phase, and not to speak ill, but even Gary had his rants about "pure D&D" back in the day, but every single one of these products contributed to the rules and setting history of D&D in one form or another.

I'd also posit that Paizo has already advanced the rules systems of PF in many mechanically significant ways; looking at their work with subsystems on the adventure paths, looking at the Vehicle rules and Firearm rules from Ultimate Combat, their systems of alternate magic from Ultimate Magic, and improvements to unarmed combat, skill systems, spell disruption, polymorph rules, while they didn't redesign the entire system, they have significantly improved on existing systems. They didn't re-invent the wheel, but they've vulcanized the rubber, balanced the tires, and added steel-belting.

The OSR crowd is basically self supporting as a hobby and doesn't need WotC or even PF/3e or 2e for that matter they never came forward in most cases. They have awesome products put out for free basically.

3rd party people have very little reason to ever leave the OGL, they will never get a better deal. IMO WotCs only hope is an app store approach that is very modern and digital. This allows integration with online tools making the subscription more valuable and appealing while allowing quality control and preventing the 5e equivalent of PF from arising.

Maybe that will allow sufficient profitability to keep from having to crank out editions every 5 years or so.

I'll agree on an app store approach, but I'd say it needs to be the Android App store, not the Apple App Store. Again, we're a culture of tinkerers, we've been so since before the 1970's; we need the ability to both tinker, and SHARE our tinkering, and have incentive to do so, or else we're not happy.