D&D 5E Crystal Ball: A year in, how do you think 5E will unfold going forward?

[Mistwell]

Option C) Wishful thinking.
Possibly with a dash of denial.

They've been working on the OGL for over a year now.

No. We don't have a lot about what happened, but we do have some. We know they intentionally left it for later, after they had the rules done. It's much less than a year.

They would have started that before the playtest ended and the product was finalized.

I think they said they were not going to start until the product was finalized.

They likely wanted it to be done around the same time as the core rules, possibly even the PHB.

They definitely said their original intent was to let people digest the DMG for a while (I think they said a few months) before they wanted an OGL out there. I know they said they intended for it to NOT be done around the same time as the core rules, and definitely not the PHB - that was in the only information we have on it.

Heck, they could have started work on it when they began work on 5e, waaaay back in 2011.

They said they did not.

The fact it's been almost a year since the books were released and they aren't even willing to discuss the probably contents albeit without details

You mean, like every other aspect of this edition for the past 6 months or so? I mean they dropped Dragon+ with no warning at all, and you expect a content discussion on something they have not finished yet?

They're "working on it" either means they're still fighting over the contents or a legal department is dragging their heels like crazy. But the latter would explain a delay of a month or two. A couple months after the DMG, maybe a third catching up after the holidays. It doesn't explain 4-5 months after the DMG was finished.

It would seem the guy on jury duty was the guy working on it. Which explains a 6 month+ delay.

Mearls is likely just being optimistic. Walking into meetings like we walk into edition war arguments thinking "I've got this now. This time when I present my case and argue my point they'll all agree with me." Still hoping he can win and get the OGL he wants out. But it doesn't work out like that. So the licence just sits there doing nobody any good.

What evidence do you have that would tend to indicate that in any way shape or form? I mean, it's not even just speculation - you literally made that up whole cloth. Though this is the crystal ball thread so I should cut you some slack.

 

[DaveDash]

They're not coming out with an OGL. That ship has sailed and the current OGL can still grow D&D. Why bother with a new one?

A licensing/partner model however is far more likely. They want to keep control of the brand this time around.

 

[Jester David]

No. We don't have a lot about what happened, but we do have some. We know they intentionally left it for later, after they had the rules done. It's much less than a year.

Except for how they approached all those 3rd Party Publishers early in the process and let them know the OGL was coming and they wanted to win them back. So some thought was given. And they've been talking about how their was going to be an OGL for months before launch. It had to be on their minds. And how they talked about releasing it in the fall of 2014 throughout the early part of that year, which means they were either working on it or thought it would be really, really quick to finish in the gap between the release of the DMG and Christmas.

I think they said they were not going to start until the product was finalized.

When did they say that?

But, again, even if they didn't even look at the document until January 2015 after the DMG had been released it doesn't take 4 1/2 months to revise a licence, either the GSL or OGL.

They definitely said their original intent was to let people digest the DMG for a while (I think they said a few months) before they wanted an OGL out there. I know they said they intended for it to NOT be done around the same time as the core rules, and definitely not the PHB - that was in the only information we have on it.

They did say that, but even at the time it sounded like spin. A justification for the OGL being late, making it sound like a plus rather than an unfortunate delay.

You mean, like every other aspect of this edition for the past 6 months or so? I mean they dropped Dragon+ with no warning at all, and you expect a content discussion on something they have not finished yet?

Yes. Because one of Mearl's last real comments on the OGL was how they were going to discuss what it would entail and then sometime later the actual text would be released.

It would seem the guy on jury duty was the guy working on it. Which explains a 6 month+ delay.

This is pure speculation.
The person on jury duty was handling the conversion documents, which means they were on the game design team and not the legal team. The legal departmet would be the primary lead in the OGL. Not much game knowledge is really needed for the OGL beyond a rough familiarity with the product.
And while they've confirmed jury duty was behind the conversion document they've been curiously silent regarding the cause of delays for the OGL. In fact, Mearls most recently said it needed more time, which doesn't sound like it was delayed so much as taking longer to finish.

What evidence do you have that would tend to indicate that in any way shape or form? I mean, it's not even just speculation - you literally made that up whole cloth. Though this is the crystal ball thread so I should cut you some slack.

No evidence, just my feelings. Since this is a "crystal ball" thread. I'd love to be proven wrong and to eat each and every one of these words. I want few things more than for WotC to come out with a kickass OGL and make me look like a colossal idiot right now. But I don't think that's going to happen.

Mearls strikes me as a big proponent of the OGL. After all, it helped him get his start in the industry. Ditto Jeremy Crawford IIRC. There are likely other OGL fans in the building who owe their careers to 3rd Parties. And I think they want something much more like the 3e licence because of this, something for the next generation of designers. But I don't see the management of WotC being favourable to this, not with Paizo being so problematic and the desire to retain as much of the IP as possible. So I think there's a battle going on at WotC as they try to get a licence more lenient than the GSL through while other factions want something else.

 

[mattcolville]

One or two APs a year. Maybe, big maybe, one splatbook if new rules are needed for an AP (e.g. psionics). Some UE articles. No real content in Dragon+, just advertizing. Probably no OGL. Some online tool, like the one Dungeonscape was supposed to sell. But no new content their either. That is it. D&D under 5e's reign, ladies an gentlemen.

The thing I like about this model is that it seems like WotC have figured out the game is the thing that happens at the table. If you make that successful, you will have a successful brand.

Whereas almost every other iteration, "success" relied on LOTS of content every year, because so many people were buying these books to read them. Like mini Silmarillions.

Focusing on the experience at the table is a much better strat to me. Which means keeping options relatively limited. There are already more options in the three core books than any group could exhaust in a lifetime of play. "More" muddies the waters in ways that might be great for *readers* but not necessarily players. Spending three hours referencing six different books to make a bad guy was by no means necessary, but EASY to fall into with earlier editions.

 

[Staffan]

Want to remind me again how that is good for business?

If I am going elsewhere with my money, how is that good for Wizards?

Because they already sold you the core books, which is their main product. If others are producing supplemental material, they don't have to spend any money making that material and they keep you "in the loop," making you (or your players) more likely to self-identify as a D&D player and be interested in other D&D merch.

Supplemental material doesn't appear out of nothing. It takes time to write the text, draw the pictures and maps, playtest the rules/adventure, edit stuff, layout the result, print the books, and so on. If they can get other people to do that for them and still keep your interest in the game, that's a major win in their book.

 

[Kramodlog]

Focusing on the experience at the table is a much better strat to me. Which means keeping options relatively limited. There are already more options in the three core books than any group could exhaust in a lifetime of play. "More" muddies the waters in ways that might be great for *readers* but not necessarily players.

That is your experience. Mine is that options and sub-systems are positive additions to the game table.

Since WotC doesn't force you to buy its books, you can keep your table free of options while people like me who like options can throw their money at WotC. Win-win-win.

 

[S'mon]

OK, this is weird. You said the same thing in the other thread. In response, I directly asked Mike Mearls (two days ago). I got a reply, he said it's not dead but still in the works. And so...you repeat it's dead? So do you think Mike Mearls is lying, or just delusional, or he's just suffering from wishful thinking about his own business, or what? I mean, I don't think it's impossible for your view to be compatible with what he said...but how do you just repeat it without even attempting to address what he said in response to your very own post just a couple days ago concerning the same topic?

I would think wishful thinking, just like all the other stuff that never materialises whether from WoTC or other companies.

 

[S'mon]

That is your experience. Mine is that options and sub-systems are positive additions to the game table.

Since WotC doesn't force you to buy its books, you can keep your table free of options while people like me who like options can throw their money at WotC. Win-win-win.

IME people like you come to the table of people like me and ask to use those options - or occasionally just use them without asking...

 

[cmad1977]

That is your experience. Mine is that options and sub-systems are positive additions to the game table.

Since WotC doesn't force you to buy its books, you can keep your table free of options while people like me who like options can throw their money at WotC. Win-win-win.

It's more win-draw-lose. You win, you get the endless options book deluge. DMs draw, some like the endless option deluge while other don't. Lose WoTC produces a product that winds up losing money at a rapid rate.

 

[graves3141]

One of two things happened after the Sundering.
1: Whatever WotC says or will say eventually.
2: whatever you WANT. Which, let's face it, could be even better than what WoTC comes up with! Or at least better suited to your group.

I'd like an official account from WotC myself... wouldn't be that hard to do either, just publish a 1-3 page update on their website. An updated map of the FR would be great too. Thing is, WotC probably has the post-sundering realms all figured out at this point anyway so why not share it with us?