D&D 5E Are you ready for a new edition of D&D?

[howandwhy99]

I really don't like the Check "system" of the new game, but I believe the game can survive losing it for something better.

What I do like is the modularity of the new design and the spirit and inclusiveness being built in. Those are all positives and hopefully will allow broad entry for all kinds of fans of D&D again.

 

[Mistwell]

I mean, maybe, but what you just described is essentially free market competition. You're saying that's harmful?

It's not. In a free market, all companies do all their own R&D, market research, testing, use of historical data and trends, etc..

The OGL allows companies to skip a huge portion of normal free market capitalism. They get to simply use a brand name and then make their own generic version of it without the heavy cost of getting to that invention in the first place, circumventing the entire point of the intellectual property laws.

And I am saying for WOTC, that was bad.

I am making no judgement if it was good or bad for consumers - I am purely speaking about whether it was good or bad for WOTC. And I think it was clearly bad for them. For them, it was not smart business.

And as to the retort "well if they had continued to follow the OGL..." I think it's noteworthy to look at the history of WOTC and Hasbro and predict it would not be something they would want to follow indefinitely and they would want to be free to use other means of developing a product. The OGL locks the indefinitely into one type of method, and one particular product line.

If the OGL had an expiration date, it would make more sense to say they should follow it. But with no expiration date, it was inevitably a harmful thing, even had they followed it for a decade. They can never choose another way to do things without serious negative ramifications, which is anti-capitalistic.

If you look at other open source things out there, they usually are for products which themselves have a natural expiration date due to technological advancements (software, hardware, etc..). Indefinite open source, however, isn't a great idea (from the companies perspective) for copyright written word. Because it never expires, always locks the company in to one method, and never gives them the advantage of their own hard R&D and pre-invention work.

Credible rumors? Or are you poking the bear with a stick here?

Very credible rumors. Two independent known publishers came out and said they had spoken directly to Mearls and he'd told them there would be an OGL or something very similar and to go ahead with their development projects. However the one caveat for both was this was a long time ago, and things could theoretically change since it wasn't a written agreement or anything.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's not. In a free market, all companies do all their own R&D, market research, testing, use of historical data and trends, etc..

The OGL allows companies to skip a huge portion of normal free market capitalism. They get to simply use a brand name and then make their own generic version of it without the heavy cost of getting to that invention in the first place, circumventing the entire point of the intellectual property laws.

Ah, so Samsung's Galaxy phone is a completely original product and not at all using the information from the surprisingly similar iPhone?

And your pizza joint, they're doing their own pizza R&D, and not slapping cheese and sauce on dough like everyone else?

And they all run their own militaries, have their own road construction crews, and mint their own currencies, I'm sure.

Open markets are built on shared, public resources. The only question is how shared. Copyright is a special carve-out of the law that exists to try and encourage useful arts -- a limited monopoly over how public those resources you develop can be. That's a special law created in opposition to the free market, to try and grant people limited monopolies under the idea that such a thing is overall better for the countries that have IP laws (typically because it lowers the barrier to entry in creating value, adding more competition to the market).

The OGL makes the market more open by creating a clear safe harbor. This doesn't truck in brand name -- there is no ability in the OGL to use WotC's copyrights or brand identity. Merely some mechanics. Which aren't IP or copyright of anyone anyway.

If you look at other open source things out there, they usually are for products which themselves have a natural expiration date due to technological advancements (software, hardware, etc..). Indefinite open source, however, isn't a great idea (from the companies perspective) for copyright written word. Because it never expires, always locks the company in to one method, and never gives them the advantage of their own hard R&D and pre-invention work.

I think you'll find this actually quite a contentious statement.

Very credible rumors. Two independent known publishers came out and said they had spoken directly to Mearls and he'd told them there would be an OGL or something very similar and to go ahead with their development projects. However the one caveat for both was this was a long time ago, and things could theoretically change since it wasn't a written agreement or anything.

Neat, then! I'm glad there's at least been dialogue. Like I said above, it's probably smart of WotC not to say anything until they have something concrete to say, so I bet if it's happening, it'll come as a surprise to a lot of folks. A pleasant one in my case! And, I'd wager, a pleasant one in the case of WotC's bottom-line, but that's me being evangelical.

 

[The Human Target]

I don't think you get networks.

Funny thing, Ryan Dancey actually had a bit of a prediction on what would happen if WotC went away from the OGL. He predicted that some other company would pick up 3e and run with it, WotC would be forced to go in a direction that would be criticized by many as "not D&D," and would hurt for it, sales-wise.

If you think WotC was hurting for sales under the 4e banner, one credible explanation for that is that they rejected the OGL. Indeed, it's the GSL that pushed Paizo into making Pathfinder in the first place...so they wouldn't even be competing with themselves if they didn't go in a different direction.



If the OGL is so clearly a horrible business idea, why might it be that the most popular tabletop RPG on the market today is fully OGL (to a degree even 3e WotC didn't embrace)? How is that even possible, if OGL is so horrible for the bottom line?


I mean, maybe, but what you just described is essentially free market competition. You're saying that's harmful?

Just so my cards are on the table, I'm a fan of OGL. For a lot of reasons. Smart business among them. PF isn't the game for me, I'd much rather drink 4e's kool-aid, but I think what they're doing with the OGL -- while simultaneously selling like hotcakes -- at least casts doubt on the largely evidence-free anecdotal idea that the OGL is horrible for business.



Credible rumors? Or are you poking the bear with a stick here?

I don't think were talking about the same thing at all.

 

[innerdude]

That's why D&D fell from 1st to 4th in popularity...

The most interesting point about this is that D&D remained the 4th most popular RPG . . . . selling rules systems (OD&D, 1e, 2e, and 3e) that the vast majority of the market had likely already owned. That tells me that even at its lowest sales point since the late 1990s, D&D has enough cachet in its player base to have those players want to continue having their groups play their edition of choice. Who was it, exactly, that was buying all of those 3.5 reprints? Not the Pathfinder players, most likely.

I'm sure there's still some 4e backstock being sold off shelves (my local Barnes and Noble still has quite a bit, as does my FLGS), but that 4th place finish is likely highly skewed to reprint sales.

 

[Arduin's]

I'm sure there's still some 4e backstock being sold off shelves (my local Barnes and Noble still has quite a bit, as does my FLGS), but that 4th place finish is likely highly skewed to reprint sales.

Absolutely. Reprints are keeping it afloat. All B&N' in my area stopped stocking 4E Core books one year after its initial release. On the other hand they stocked 3.5 all the way until 4E release.

 

[Zardnaar]

3.5 did have to compete with older editions as the retroclones like Castles and Crusades turned up during 3.5. The difference was there was no mass exodus of 3rd ed players to the retroclones like there was with Pathfinder which really is just a clone of 3.5. Slight difference of scale . 10 years ago most of the fanbase was happy with 3rd ed.I think the best way forward would be a fixed version of 3rd ed. D&DN might make it but I have a feeeling it will not be around as such in 5 years time. 6th ed will be on the way or no D&D.

 

[Arduin's]

3.5 did have to compete with older editions as the retroclones like Castles and Crusades turned up during 3.5. The difference was there was no mass exodus of 3rd ed players to the retroclones like there was with Pathfinder which really is just a clone of 3.5. Slight difference of scale . 10 years ago most of the fanbase was happy with 3rd ed.I think the best way forward would be a fixed version of 3rd ed. D&DN might make it but I have a feeeling it will not be around as such in 5 years time. 6th ed will be on the way or no D&D.

Right. And, there was only a mass exodus to PF because WotC stopped making D&D, except in name only. 5.x will be less successful than 3.x.

 

[Zardnaar]

Right. And, there was only a mass exodus to PF because WotC stopped making D&D, except in name only. 5.x will be less successful than 3.x.

Well they might get some newbs in so IDK which way it well go. i prefer OSR myself but I am not blind that 3rd ed and Pathfinder are the most popular versions of D&D right now. An interesting thread went up on the WoTC site showing more people playing 3rd ed online than 4th ed and Pathfinder beat both of them. They have to appease the 3rd ed crowd or replace them or settle for a smaller share of the pie.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm still waiting for them to finish 4E and publish the 4.5 revision to fix all the lazy editing failures they let slip in near the end.

I wish the players of 5E well, but it's going to take all of 5E for WotC to regain any confidence I have in their ability to follow through.