D&D 5E Any word on the gaming license for Next?

[Mark CMG]

That doesn't change if 4e is OGL, as well.

Yeah, it does in so far as folks go with the new edition which has an OGL because that's where the money is. The evidence for this supposition is in what Paizo was saying at the time and what folks have been able to make of retrocloning. Fact of the matter is that all previous editions of the game are now available in some form under the OGL except 4.XE because 4.XE is designed to confound the OGL while previous editions were not.

But, to your point, folks are NOT making tons of money (the kinds of money that make you competitive with WotC) on pre-3.XE editions despite them all having OGL support because there is no major publisher pushing a pre-3.XE edition, as Paizo is pushing 3.XE and WotC is pushing 4.XE. One might argue that C&C and Hackmaster represent such efforts to support older editions but neither seems to make the kind of money that makes their companies competitive with WotC and it should also be noted that HM isn't OGL.

Which brings us back to the reality that ANY pre-4.XE edition can be supported with or without the OGL but Paizo, with its plethora of former WotC employees is competitive with WotC through PF but PF wouldn't exist without 4.XE being non-OGL. Claiming there would be a PF if 4.XE had been OGL and Paizo had been supporting a 4.XE OGL is simply ignoring the realities of what we actually know.

 

[Mark CMG]

That still doesn't answer the question. How does going OGL contribute to success in ways that a liberal GSL does not?

There's no such animal as a "liberal GSL" as the GSL was designed to be a restrictive OGL. The restrictions in it are what made it fail as an alternative to the OGL. If you remove the restrictions, you're back to the OGL.

 

[dmccoy1693]

WotC not going OGL is like saying WotC shouldn't make a good product, imho. Their biggest competitor is successful in no small part BECAUSE they are OGL.

Right on the money.

Plus there are LOTS of ripple effects with this. PFRPG has a larger 3PP market which means that it has lots of designers working on the system. So when it comes time to hire an editor, you have a larger pool of people from which to pick. So you can get the best talent for your company with them already knowing the ins and outs of how your game works instead of having to train them and taking months for them to get caught up to speed.

Next is leadership/group-think. It is hard to look like a leader when no one will follow you. So when the crowd starts following someone else, a new person will go where the "herd" is. This translates into higher sales for the main company. And when that person gets tired of playing generic D&D (or pathfinder or whatever) and want something else, they will stay close if they have a close option (aka a 3PP product/setting/whatever that is more to their liking). Lacking a close option, they will go farther away (aka another game entirely). Dancey described this by saying that a game is only as good as the number of people playing it. More players => more opportunities to play => more games => more sales. Many questioned if this were true when he said it 12+ years ago, but frankly, I think we have a perfect case study at this point.

As I think of more reasons, I'll post them. For now, my brain is hurting.

 

[Dausuul]

There's no such animal as a "liberal GSL" as the GSL was designed to be a restrictive OGL. The restrictions in it are what made it fail as an alternative to the OGL. If you remove the restrictions, you're back to the OGL.

Of course there's such an animal. The GSL is more restrictive than the OGL, but there's a wide range of possibilities that fit that description. The original GSL was so restrictive--essentially giving WotC the power to kill any third-party company they chose, any time, ever--that hardly any 3PP was willing to agree with it. They eventually loosened things up and got some 3PPs on board, though by that point Paizo had already cut its ties.

The question is, what is the advantage to Wizards of opening up the core of 5E (OGL), versus allowing third-party sourcebooks and adventures with few restrictions while keeping the core closed (liberal GSL)?

 

[Mark CMG]

The original GSL was so restrictive--essentially giving WotC the power to kill any third-party company they chose, any time, ever--that hardly any 3PP was willing to agree with it. They eventually loosened things up and got some 3PPs on board, though by that point Paizo had already cut its ties.

You need to look at the license - http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/4E_GSL.pdf

There is nothing really "loosened" in the license and suggesting that Paizo might have done other than they did if they hadn't already made other plans is unrealistic.

The question is, what is the advantage to Wizards of opening up the core of 5E (OGL), versus allowing third-party sourcebooks and adventures with few restrictions while keeping the core closed (liberal GSL)?

Again, there's really no such animal as a "liberal" GSL. Once you remove the restrictions that make the GSL restrictive, they might as well use the OGL. You keep asking questions about what needs to be removed to make it not-quite-the-OGL but I get the feeling you aren't asking, and making claims, while looking at what is in the GSL. But it's right there beyond the link so feel free to suggest what could be removed that would change anything without just going with the OGL.

 

[darjr]

The question is, what is the advantage to Wizards of opening up the core of 5E (OGL), versus allowing third-party sourcebooks and adventures with few restrictions while keeping the core closed (liberal GSL)?

The advantage is, on this field, they'll be able to compete with a strong competitor. Without it they've lost before even starting, on this field.

 

[Dausuul]

Okay, you know what? Forget the terms "OGL" and "GSL." I'm tired of debating semantics. Someone explain to me what the advantage to Wizards is of opening up the 5E core in such a way that a third party could produce a Pathfinder-equivalent for 5E.

I'm not talking about allowing 3PPs to produce 5E sourcebooks and adventures. The advantage of allowing those is obvious. I am talking now about an open license to reprint the Player's Handbook. In what SPECIFIC way does THIS, this one thing, help D&D compete with Pathfinder?

 

[Nellisir]

Again, there's really no such animal as a "liberal" GSL. Once you remove the restrictions that make the GSL restrictive, they might as well use the OGL. You keep asking questions about what needs to be removed to make it not-quite-the-OGL but I get the feeling you aren't asking, and making claims, while looking at what is in the GSL. But it's right there beyond the link so feel free to suggest what could be removed that would change anything without just going with the OGL.

A midpoint between the OGL and the GSL would or could lock out products over a certain size; products that concern character generation, or products that (and this seems likely now that I think about it) manipulate the "basic" structure of the game mechanics, essentially whatever would make up the baseline game. This frees up 3PP to produce add-ons but makes it harder for them to resell the whole game. The GSL merged the d20 license and the OGL; there is middle ground between the OGL and the GSL.

Gotta run.

 

[darjr]

Okay, you know what? Forget the terms "OGL" and "GSL." I'm tired of debating semantics. Someone explain to me what the advantage to Wizards is of opening up the 5E core in such a way that a third party could produce a Pathfinder-equivalent for 5E.

I'm not talking about allowing 3PPs to produce 5E sourcebooks and adventures. The advantage of allowing those is obvious. I am talking now about an open license to reprint the Player's Handbook. In what SPECIFIC way does THIS, this one thing, help D&D compete with Pathfinder?

I think I have. But here goes again.

Without it 5e will be at a disadvantage. Many folks will look at the lack of 5e being able to 'live' past it's support from WotC as a mark against it. Their competitor will have an advantage over 5e from day one.

edit to add: I must say that this post reads as really snarky, it wasn't meant that way. I think we just are talking past each other.

 

[Mark CMG]

A midpoint between the OGL and the GSL would or could lock out products over a certain size; products that concern character generation, or products that (and this seems likely now that I think about it) manipulate the "basic" structure of the game mechanics, essentially whatever would make up the baseline game.

Yeah, I just don't see that changing anything for the majority of people that had problems with the GSL. Plus, the poison pill that kills your support of a ruleset whenever they decide makes any other effort to adjust the GSL a non-starter for most. Seriously, might as well OGL or just forget it. But, the point is moot, since by not starting with the OGL, they've largely made the OGL pool of OGC irrelevant during the design process thereby crippling and real benefit for themselves from day one.