An IP lawyer just broke down the new OGL draft (v1.2)

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat

Your post makes an interesting conjecture. I'm probably a bit more sceptical than you, but maybe not for any very good reason!

4e is an interesting example of WotC publishing a game which had a substrate - more complex than AW layers 1 and 2 - which supported the promulgation of layer 3 and 4 style lists (new power; new classes; whole new build elements like Themes as a Heroic-tier analogue to Paragon Paths, or variants on treasure like Grandmaster Training (or whatever its called in DMG2)). It clearly didn't support selling stories to play through (witness the general sadness which is most of the 4e modules; not quite all of them).

I don't think they want to go back to the 4e model. What would be interesting would be a different approach to modules/settings/APs: instead of introducing baroque subsystems (say, for spell jamming or for avoiding heat in the city or whatever), that sit somewhat inertly alongside the story, they could bring it closer to AW-style custom moves for threats.

But that would be a big change in design approach. They'd need to recruit the Bakers, John Harper, the BWHQ team etc (or apprentices of all of the above) to be their new RPG team!

 

[Maxperson]

No one gets up in arms about not being use the Monopoly Open License

I don't know. I'd really like open license to burn all Monopoly games.

 

[Maxperson]

A monopoly open license isn't needed. Here is a forum full of Monopil-ish games: Inspired By Monopoly - Variants and Rip-Offs

This was the most amusing variant. You ran around the board collecting money from OJ for the trial.

View attachment pic31198.webp

 

[rcade]

I guess you could argue that the OGL meant that Paizo didn't go with an original system back when they first launched Pathfinder. But I'm not sure they would have even considered releasing a directly competing product if they didn't have the OGL.

We don't know what Paizo would have done without the OGL offering a safe harbor that WOTC said repeatedly was written to be relied on forever.

We do know that Paizo is exceptionally good at publishing and supporting a game compatible with D&D. It's reasonable to believe that it could've done the same thing with an unlicensed game, everything else being equal, and achieved success.

WOTC has put the publishers who trusted the OGL in a worse position than the publishers that didn't. If there is any litigation, I'd like to see a court weigh in acts of sabotage against competitors by the market leader.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think there was ever a serious commitment to 5e as a base for 'anything you want to do'. It very systematically and deliberately creates barriers to story play. That wasn't an accident; you would have to think Mike Mearls is a total idiot and forgot everything he ever read, and wrote, on The Forge in order to believe that. The 'modules' of which you speak are simply empty gestures meant to deflect criticism and let 5e's supporters feel good about it.

I mean, its possible some other members of the team that worked on 5e might have wished for something different, but AFAICT, and judging by what I saw in the playtest period and the WotC forums during the 'D&D Next' foofarah the game is in essence a 100% MM design. I think that's why Monty didn't stick around either, not that he necessarily disagreed with Mike, but what would be the point if your role is purely to watch Mike do what he's going to do anyway? Now, in terms of details of various mechanics, there was definitely trial-and-error and debate, but the design principles of the game were dictated straight from Mike, and they were basically "do the opposite of 4e" from top to bottom.

Ah, okay. I read all the way to the end thinking, "what is going on? what on earth are you talking about? what strange bias leads someone to think that the game is just Mearls all the way down or whatever, or that 5e is full of intentional barriers to story play?" and then I got to the end.

Of course.

It's just veterans of the edition wars shaking their fist at ze germans as if the war never ended.

 

[Olrox17]

I don't think there was ever a serious commitment to 5e as a base for 'anything you want to do'. It very systematically and deliberately creates barriers to story play. That wasn't an accident; you would have to think Mike Mearls is a total idiot and forgot everything he ever read, and wrote, on The Forge in order to believe that. The 'modules' of which you speak are simply empty gestures meant to deflect criticism and let 5e's supporters feel good about it.

I mean, its possible some other members of the team that worked on 5e might have wished for something different, but AFAICT, and judging by what I saw in the playtest period and the WotC forums during the 'D&D Next' foofarah the game is in essence a 100% MM design. I think that's why Monty didn't stick around either, not that he necessarily disagreed with Mike, but what would be the point if your role is purely to watch Mike do what he's going to do anyway? Now, in terms of details of various mechanics, there was definitely trial-and-error and debate, but the design principles of the game were dictated straight from Mike, and they were basically "do the opposite of 4e" from top to bottom.

There’s a good chance you are correct about that, there’s a fair bit of evidence on your side.
Still, the idea of a modular D&D was interesting, even if they only came up with it as a disingenuous gesture to placate their customers.

 

[Ashtagon]

Regarding the Creative Commons bit...


I can't place the concept of "wolf" into creative commons because it's literally thousands of years old (at least in so far as a traceable language etymology exists), and therefore public domain. A similar issue exists with much of the other content that WotC has assigned to CC. No one needs to give any particular legal credit to public domain material, but you do have to acknowledge use of creative commons material.

In order to assign something to a Creative Commons licence, doesn't it have to be yours in the first place? Otherwise, it gives companies freedom to enclose the commons by forcing others to include licence notices for things that previously didn't need licences.

Edit: Additional question: If a 3PP does use pubic domain content that WC has assigned to CC, without including a CC licence notice, does that enable WC to take that 3PP to court for breach of their "copyright"? It might be a spurious lawsuit (the purpose of which would be to make it financially unviable for the 3PP to continue publishing, rather than to actually win the law case), but it seems to me the theoretical grounds are there for it if we as a community accept it as being CC and not public domain.

 

[Iosue]

WotC isn’t placing the “concepts” of the D&D rules in CC, they are placing their text expressing these rules, for which they indisputably have always had copyright to, into CC.

 

[mamba]

Let me rephrase my question. Do you think we would have more 1b TTRPG publishers if it wasn't for the OGL? And what kind of games do you envision that these hypothetical game studios would be making?

we have no 1B publishers today, most of that is MtG money. D&D is around 150M of that.

Would we have more larger publishers today without the OGL? I think we would have more mid-range, and WotC would be amongst them. The OGL helped 5e immensely imo, not the least by retaining 3e players that came back with 5e who otherwise would have moved to a different system altogether or out of the hobby

Also, look into network externalities, most of the 3pp do bring players to D&D as they create D&D products

 

[rcade]

In order to assign something to a Creative Commons licence, doesn't it have to be yours in the first place? Otherwise, it gives companies freedom to enclose the commons by forcing others to include licence notices for things that previously didn't need licences.

Anything that's in the public domain -- such as a wolf or the adventurer Allan Quatermain -- can be used in a Creative Commons-licensed work or any other copyrighted work. This wouldn't be enclosing the commons because other authors could still use them. The only things that would be protected from reuse are the unique and distinctive things that the author introduced about them, such as giving the wolves lasers that shoot out of their mouths (for good or evil) or making Allan a member of a K-Pop dance band.

WOTC putting D&D rules under Creative Commons doesn't stop anyone from deciding that those particular rules are not protected by copyright and thus require no license to use in a new work. It only limits those who choose to use the rules under the Creative Commons license.