(. . .) and what would a "new OGL" entail.
While I agree that the OGL was tremendously important, I don't think it was the main reason behind 3e's popularity or the 4e controversy and split. In both cases, I think the substance of what was in the books was the salient factor. I think that if the same 4e had been released OGL, there would still be a Pathfinder and a substantial group of 3.X loyalists.Though I do believe the GSL was the main reason for 4E's crash. OGL was easily the main reason 3E flourished so easily and so widely. With GSL and instant fall of most third-party supplements, D&D lost its major advantage: adaptability and inclusion of virtually any ideas you can think of. If they managed to get a new OGL in 5E - or, an empty wish, I know, implemented a version of OGL to use with 4E (or a possible 4.5), it might give them back some momentum.
I still have no idea what kind of bright head thought abandoning the main reason for 3E popularity was a good idea.
Very good, I expect. Not that it'll likely happen.Mark CMG said:What would a D&D 5E look like under the OGL?
While I agree that the OGL was tremendously important, I don't think it was the main reason behind 3e's popularity or the 4e controversy and split. In both cases, I think the substance of what was in the books was the salient factor. I think that if the same 4e had been released OGL, there would still be a Pathfinder and a substantial group of 3.X loyalists.
I'm one of those who, when looking at this situation from WotC's point of view, sees the success of PF as a strong reason not to release IP under the OGL in the future. So I voted "little benefit" in the poll.
If I were a corporate exec who knew nothing about D&D, I'd be inclined to copy something successful, not fight it. That happens a lot in the entertainment industry.I'm one of those who, when looking at this situation from WotC's point of view, sees the success of PF as a strong reason not to release IP under the OGL in the future.