Any news out of PAX East?

[Mark CMG]

Stuff like the OGL invovles legal issues and so instead of focusing on that right now when the game is just starting to take shape just doesn't make sense. Maybe when they are at 50% or higher or something and have a better idea what the game looks like they can set something up.

That would be the opposite of a way to approach an OGL game, since pursuing such a game design opens up the entire pool of OGC currently available and that's something you need to know on day one. By your logic, it's a certainty that 5E will not be an OGL game, at least not one that leverages the full advantages of being an OGL game. So, too, by your logic, 5E is unlikely to be a GSL game that leverages the GSL to its fullest advantage, since while less vast than the OGC pool under the OGL, certainly there has been much produced under the GSL that would be useful to know is at the designers' disposal from the outset. I hadn't considered things from quite this perspective but it may well be your point has given the answer to what might be in the offing for licensing of 5E.

 

[Kynn]

Stuff like the OGL invovles legal issues and so instead of focusing on that right now when the game is just starting to take shape just doesn't make sense. Maybe when they are at 50% or higher or something and have a better idea what the game looks like they can set something up.

Also, different people at WOTC work on different things. The game designers who are creating the game aren't -- I sure hope -- the same people who are going to be writing the legalese connected with any sort of license.

So the legal side is presumably proceeding along at their own pace, independent of the game developer side, each team working in parallel.

(It's not like Mike Mearls is gonna take a week off from creating game rules and write up a game license.)

 

[GM Dave]

The point of a good OGL is to make sure your new product is well supported from launch.

I was just looking at a Penny Arcade today that pointed to a major product for the Vita system that was shipped a week ahead of the Vita. The character was all set to play as soon as he could get his Vita system.

To make sure of that product available at launch, you need outside designers with enough lead time to hold on to some of the material and play with it. It is also a good source of playtesters as they often have seen other products and are familiar with your design goals.

Modules are never the same audience or print run that the main RPG books are and trying to bare all that in house (4e did much of that) reduces what is produced and eats up resources that could go to other things.

There is a danger with 3rd party materials becoming splat sensations but they are often a good source of ideas. It was 3rd party developers in 3e that really latched onto Prestige Classes in the beginning and created things like the Quinisential Line of books.

Paizo has left Psionics to 3rd party development as it is something that only a sub-set of their market really wants in the game at this time.

Going with a module style of design and character themes the 3rd party developers could be given space to design modern, pirate theme, or undead/monster hunter style (samples of many other ideas) of materials which have audiences but are not part of the core DnD market.

These options can bring in money (apple does it all the time and gets 30% of sales through their store). Developers though need to have time to commit their resources to develop the materials.

Another good point of this approach is to remember that talent is going to produce and creativity is going to write.

The 3rd party people are going to make something in the next 18 months (they have bills to pay too). You can either harness their energies with an OGL aimed at your product or leave them free to develop products for another product line that will consume your audience's dollars.

I work for a company that does a certain amount of free work. We do free work (customer doesn't pay a dime while the company still pays employees and overhead) because the company knows that if it doesn't do that work then those people will pay money to a competitor. It also provides a nice tag line to say we did so much work for free.

 

[Morrus]

That would be the opposite of a way to approach an OGL game, since pursuing such a game design opens up the entire pool of OGC currently available and that's something you need to know on day one. By your logic, it's a certainty that 5E will not be an OGL game, at least not one that leverages the full advantages of being an OGL game. So, too, by your logic, 5E is unlikely to be a GSL game that leverages the GSL to its fullest advantage, since while less vast than the OGC pool under the OGL, certainly there has been much produced under the GSL that would be useful to know is at the designers' disposal from the outset. I hadn't considered things from quite this perspective but it may well be your point has given the answer to what might be in the offing for licensing of 5E.

I don't think it'll be OGL or GSL. I think it'll have some kind of licensing structure, but I wouldn't bet on it resembling pervious ones.

 

[Zustiur]

At what point in the development of 3E was the OGL announced? I don't remember it until well after release, but then I wasn't paying attention to things like that.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think it'll be OGL or GSL. I think it'll have some kind of licensing structure, but I wouldn't bet on it resembling pervious ones.

I suspect you are right. All signs point to them not using what has come before, OGL or GSL, or they would already likely be lining up support under those arrangements.

At what point in the development of 3E was the OGL announced? I don't remember it until well after release, but then I wasn't paying attention to things like that.

A number of publishers were brought on board prior to the first 3.0 releases, and others allowed to work concurrent with a gentlemen's agreement, an agreement based on trusting that WotC and the 3PP would all be satisfied that the OGL would be agreeable to everyone once finalized, and so it seemingly was.

 

[Gundark]

LOL @ Paizo making D&D 4.25 comment

 

[Bedrockgames]

I suspect you are right. All signs point to them not using what has come before, OGL or GSL, or they would already likely be lining up support under those arrangements.


as.

My guess is the two best options for them (business wise) are full OGL or nothing at all. If they want to protect their IP (like every other RPG co out there) i wont hold it against them. But a semi open license that puts too much of a burden of any kind on third party company's(like the GSL) will probably just create bad blood and confusion. An OGL at least has the advantage of nerfing competition and creating a wave of products from other companies to bolster interest in 5e (they shouldn't underestimate the "everybody is doing it" effect).

 

[Bedrockgames]

LOL @ Paizo making D&D 4.25 comment

I agree that was funny, but Paizo really is the wild card here. I imagine both paizo and wizards have a shared anxiety about each other's future plans.

 

[Yora]

An OGL at least has the advantage of nerfing competition and creating a wave of products from other companies to bolster interest in 5e (they shouldn't underestimate the "everybody is doing it" effect).

Which I think for 5th Edition is more important than it ever was. This game will have to stand on its own legs. With lots of 3rd Ed fans disliking 4th Edition and the other way round, people won't just hop on to "upgrade" the rules of their game. Now they know they will be getting a new game from a company that for many had gone into a completely wrong direction.
For whatever reason, 4th Edition wasn't regarded as comercially sustainable, so they started scrapping it and developing a new game very early on. Which means 5th Edition has to be significantly more successful, while facing a much higher degree of doubt. An OGL may well be what makes or breaks the whole thing (though in either case, there won't be a way to tell if this aspect made the difference or something else).