D&D 5E Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition OGL?

[Kalontas]

Perhaps. But it's nearly certain Pathfinder (or another 3.x knockoff accepted as legit) would not exist if there had never been an OGL for 3e in the first place.

In that case, most likely 4E would not exist either - as gamers would still be scattered among the older editions, 3E would not pay for itself, and the brand would be officially abandoned right there.

 

[Halivar]

I can't see WotC using the OGL ever again, and I believe they sincerely wish they'd never OGL'd 3rd edition to begin with. It was good for the hobby, but perhaps not the wisest business move.

There will be no future forkable versions of D&D.

 

[Dausuul]

I would say that 5E will not have an OGL. What it will have is one of the following:

• Much less restrictive GSL, drafted with the goal of bringing a lot of 3PPs back into the fold. The core PHB stuff will be off-limits, but monster and magic item statblocks--pretty much everything you need in order to create a good adventure--will be open for use, and companies won't have to worry about having their license yanked out from under them.
• GSL so restrictive nobody uses it, or no GSL at all.

The first option is what WotC will do if they are smart. Hasbro isn't going to stand for a re-creation of the OGL; the execs will say, with some justification, that Wizards set itself up for the 4E/Pathfinder split. Opening up the core of the game achieved Dancey's goal of "saving D&D" so that it could never again be threatened by corporate mismanagement, but it's not clear it was good for WotC's bottom line even in the short term.

But a more licensee-friendly GSL, drafted to keep the core of the system off-limits while opening up the rest, would enable Wizards to "outsource" adventure development. This is a vital support task, which Wizards has never been very good at and which has never made them much money. Letting 3PPs handle it for them is just good business sense, while they focus on their core competency of building the game itself. It would also buy them some community goodwill. I think the importance of this goodwill is widely overstated, but it's not worthless.

On the other hand, media and publishing companies don't have a good track record when it comes to opening up their IP, even when it's clearly in their interest to do so. Witness how record companies have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. It's quite possible that Hasbro and WotC executives will take Pathfinder as evidence that opening up your property just comes back to bite you in the long run, and the answer is to clamp down on everything. If that's the case, 5E may not even have a GSL. If it does, it will be as bad as or worse than the present one; no major 3PP will touch it with a standard-issue ten-foot pole.

(To the question of whether Pathfinder would have happened if 4E had had an OGL, I agree with those who say Paizo wouldn't have done it, at least to start with. As I recall, Paizo was planning to go to 4E, but the complete bungling of the GSL release forced them to take a different route. However, I suspect somebody would have set out to snap up all the discontented 3E players. After all, under the OGL it's literally possible to reprint the 3E Player's Handbook, absent a handful of names.)

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) the OGL (. . .) but it's not clear it was good for WotC's bottom line even in the short term.

This is an interesting interpretation because I've never seen anything that would point to 3E under the OGL being a huge success. The OGL and SRD releases even seemed to bridge the transition between 3.0 and 3.5. It isn't until WotC began distancing themselves from it (they tailed off on their SRD additions after a few 3.5 inclusions) that it seems to have become less successful. Can you elaborate on why you have the impression that this is unclear?

 

[Dausuul]

This is an interesting interpretation because I've never seen anything that would point to 3E under the OGL being a huge success. The OGL and SRD releases even seemed to bridge the transition between 3.0 and 3.5. It isn't until WotC began distancing themselves from it (they tailed off on their SRD additions after a few 3.5 inclusions) that it seems to have become less successful. Can you elaborate on why you have the impression that this is unclear?

Your ellipses are obscuring a key part of my point. I'm not talking about the whole OGL. I'm talking about the part of the OGL that opens up the core of the game; that gives you the ability to reprint the 3E Player's Handbook almost word-for-word and sell it as your own thing.

There's a pretty good argument that enabling third-party publishers to put out adventures and sourcebooks for 3E was beneficial to WotC. But the OGL went a lot farther than that. It put the whole game up for anyone to do whatever they liked with. I've yet to see a convincing rationale for how that would have helped WotC's sales, and I find it hard to imagine how it could be proven without detailed access to their market research--how can you disentangle the effect of that one portion of the OGL from everything else going on?

 

[Mark CMG]

Your ellipses are obscuring a key part of my point. I'm not talking about the whole OGL. I'm talking about the part of the OGL that opens up the core of the game; that gives you the ability to reprint the 3E Player's Handbook almost word-for-word and sell it as your own thing.

There's a pretty good argument that enabling third-party publishers to put out adventures and sourcebooks for 3E was beneficial to WotC. But the OGL went a lot farther than that. It put the whole game up for anyone to do whatever they liked with. I've yet to see a convincing rationale for how that would have helped WotC's sales, and I find it hard to imagine how it could be proven without detailed access to their market research--how can you disentangle the effect of that one portion of the OGL from everything else going on?

You can license out creating adventures without an OGL (the GSL does that) but the innovation and level of fervent participation you get from being a full OGL partner cannot be matched by half measures (again, witness the GSL). I'm surprised you cannot see a convincing rationale when the success of 3E under the OGL and the PR nightmare and subsequent lack of success with the GSL stand in such stark contrast of one another and are perfect examples in their own right. If you cannot be convinced without the detailed numbers, fair enough, but I think you'd be in a fairly slim minority of people if not able to understand essentially what happened without access to those numbers.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I really doubt we will ever see OGL product from WOTC at least not D&D OGL product. I have great doubts we will even see a GSL in the future. That said I am also not convince we will see 5e anytime soon either.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Pathfinder was not the first repackaging of rules under the OGL, others were not nearly as successful. And Pathfinder only came into existence because WotC was abandoning the OGL.

Folks creating new rules sets under the OGL was part of the point of the OGL, to diminish the number of redundant game systems.

But, had WotC stuck with the OGL, I doubt that we would see any other game challenge D&D for the number one spot.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dausuul]

You can license out creating adventures without an OGL (the GSL does that) but the innovation and level of fervent participation you get from being a full OGL partner cannot be matched by half measures (again, witness the GSL). I'm surprised you cannot see a convincing rationale when the success of 3E under the OGL and the PR nightmare and subsequent lack of success with the GSL stand in such stark contrast of one another and are perfect examples in their own right. If you cannot be convinced without the detailed numbers, fair enough, but I think you'd be in a fairly slim minority of people if not able to understand essentially what happened without access to those numbers.

But the GSL went screamingly far in the opposite direction. In addition to closing off the core of the game, they imposed a bunch of weird and confusing restrictions (you can make up new monster statblocks but you can't use ours as listed!), and gave Wizards the right to yank the license at will. A company that built itself on producing adventures for 4E, the way Paizo did in 3E, could be terminated at the whim of WotC's executive of the week.

Furthermore, it was delivered months late, and in its original version it tried to prohibit producing GSL and OGL content side by side. This was utterly unacceptable to pretty much everybody, so it got sent back for a rewrite, adding more months. By the time Wizards finally came out with a GSL that some of the big-name 3PPs were willing to sign up for, it was too late.

If the GSL had just been "the OGL, but you can't reprint the Player's Handbook any more," things would have been very, very different.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But the OGL went a lot farther than that. It put the whole game up for anyone to do whatever they liked with. I've yet to see a convincing rationale for how that would have helped WotC's sales, and I find it hard to imagine how it could be proven without detailed access to their market research--how can you disentangle the effect of that one portion of the OGL from everything else going on?

At least in theory, the case would be the same as with any number of free-to-play MMOs, or other similar business models. Offer the basics for free to get people hooked, then sell them premium products. The hypertext SRD could be seen as an excellent marketing tool.

 

[Mark CMG]

But the GSL went screamingly far in the opposite direction. In addition to closing off the core of the game, they imposed a bunch of weird and confusing restrictions (you can make up new monster statblocks but you can't use ours as listed!), and gave Wizards the right to yank the license at will. A company that built itself on producing adventures for 4E, the way Paizo did in 3E, could be terminated at the whim of WotC's executive of the week.

Furthermore, it was delivered months late, and in its original version it tried to prohibit producing GSL and OGL content side by side. This was utterly unacceptable to pretty much everybody, so it got sent back for a rewrite, adding more months. By the time Wizards finally came out with a GSL that some of the big-name 3PPs were willing to sign up for, it was too late.

If the GSL had just been "the OGL, but you can't reprint the Player's Handbook any more," things would have been very, very different.

The GSL is essentially a license to produce adventures and some sourcebooks for 4E, and some few companies do so. Most former 3PPs that contributed to the huge success of 3E aren't interested in a license like the GSL and the lack of success it engenders is fairly obvious even without access to the numbers. The amount of time it took to iron out and the fact that WotC could terminate it wouldn't have deterred companies from producing adventures and sourcebooks for 4E using the GSL if those companies thought there was money to be made. With the 3E OGL, there were very few companies at the beginning relative to all that were eventually involved, so the timing isn't as big an issue as you profess. So, too, the restriction that WotC could revoke the GSL means little to someone making an adventure and selling it as the bulk of sales come in the first few months after which the company has moved on to make other things. Certainly, once something has been printed and distributed, there is no provision for WotC to force a company to go out and recollect already sold units. So, again, in the scenario you put forth that restriction would make little difference. There are other concerns with those provisions but they aren't relevant to your points so I'll leave those aside.

And let's be clear, because you seem to be confusing things, the 3.XE Player's Handbooks cannot be reprinted by anyone other than WotC. Phrasing it in the way you do shows a huge lack of understanding of what the OGL allowed (I'll assume this isn't some sort of deliberate attempt to obfuscate what the OGL actually allows).

What anyone could do, whether they want to produce the material or just possess it, was to download the 3.XE SRD, which is the bulk of the mechanics of the game system as expressed in a manner by the designers so as to make those mechanics clear. This seems to have not harmed the sales of actual Player's Handbooks, Dungeon Master's Guides, and Monster Manuals in the least, if the huge success of 3E is anything by which to judge and I'm going to say that it is whether you wish to disagree or not. That would seem to have been the heart of your objection, which really makes most of your argument moot, but there are some other points that should still be addressed.

What some have done with the 3.XE SRD, myself included, is take the SRD and add value to it as a prep tool. My own SRD 3.5 Revised has been wildly successful for me. It's over 3,500 PDF pages laying out the SRD with hyperlinks and new tables (like spell tables and CR tables) to make it a great electronic resource for gamers using that system. It's been cited by RPGNow as one of the top one hundred products of their ten year run as an online eTailer (out of thousands of products). I'm very proud of that. Because, however, I had read some fringe objections from folks like yourself over time to reformatting the SRD as some sort of afront to the OGL ideal, when I spoke on the phone to Scott Rouse while the GSL was first being considered, I raised the question with him. I was told that it wasn't something that was problematic. This is because while it has been a huge success for me, it wasn't something that WotC wanted to do themselves, it wouldn't have been big enough to be a success for them.

So, to sum up, your arguments seem to be all over the place, misunderstanding the facts of the licensing while simultaneously misattributing problems or restrictions in the GSL to bolster some points you make, as well as refusing to acknowledge sucesses or failures without hard numbers that few other people would believe are necessary to realize what has happened in the market. Some things we know include: 3PP can and do produce adventures and sourcebooks for 4E using the GSL but few find it to be successful enough to do so; The OGL was incredibly success for WotC and 3PP alike during the period in which WotC worked with it; Some 3PP still find working with the OGL to be hugely successful.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm against 5e being OGL. I got tired of looking for the diamond in the rough. People always remember the good, but they seem to forget the ton of bad for each one good book we had. It over saturated the market though luckily it seems many of those companies have died.

While there was a lot of bad products for all the good ones, I would like to think that the OGL basically created a more competitive market within the d20 system itself that pushed a lot of exceptionally creative new products, while also creating a lot of niche products within the divided fanbase. But the OGL allowed for a fanbase to be divided in terms of particular preferences while still being united behind the core d20 system.

 

[Dausuul]

This seems to have not harmed the sales of actual Player's Handbooks, Dungeon Master's Guides, and Monster Manuals in the least, if the huge success of 3E is anything by which to judge and I'm going to say that it is whether you wish to disagree or not.

...All right, rather than arguing the rest off into the weeds, I'm going to focus on this point, because I think this is the core of the misunderstanding. I did not claim, nor do I believe, that the opening up of the core of the game as the SRD hurt 3E sales. What I said was that there's no evidence it helped those sales, and I don't see any reason to believe it did.

3E sales were almost certainly helped by the ability of 3PPs to create sourcebooks and adventures. The GSL also allows this, but under much more restrictive conditions. Those restrictive conditions drove off many of the 3PPs who were initially ready to jump on board with 4E (most notably Paizo and Green Ronin), and created a very bad impression in the community. Green Ronin was quite specific that they were unwilling to sign the revised GSL because:

We do not, however, feel that this license treats third party publishers as valued partners. Under its terms WotC could frivolously sue a signatory for supposed violations of the GSL, lose the actual court case, and still ruin the winning company because the license specifies that the signatory has to pay WotC's legal fees. Also, the GSL can be changed at any time and WotC is not legally required to so much as inform its licensees.

So, I think there is room for a 5E GSL that "treats third party publishers as valued partners," and could reap the benefits of effectively outsourcing adventure development, without having to convince Hasbro lawyers that 5E ought to be as wide-open as 3E was.

 

[Mark CMG]

...All right, rather than arguing the rest off into the weeds, I'm going to focus on this point, because I think this is the core of the misunderstanding. I did not claim, nor do I believe, that the opening up of the core of the game as the SRD hurt 3E sales. What I said was that there's no evidence it helped those sales, and I don't see any reason to believe it did.

3E sales were almost certainly helped by the ability of 3PPs to create sourcebooks and adventures. The GSL also allows this, but under much more restrictive conditions. Those restrictive conditions drove off many of the 3PPs who were initially ready to jump on board with 4E (most notably Paizo and Green Ronin), and created a very bad impression in the community. Green Ronin was quite specific that they were unwilling to sign the revised GSL (. . .)

So, I think there is room for a 5E GSL that "treats third party publishers as valued partners," and could reap the benefits of effectively outsourcing adventure development, without having to convince Hasbro lawyers that 5E ought to be as wide-open as 3E was.

I think you hold a minority opinion regarding how much the OGL helped launch and perpetuate the sales of 3.XE. I think, regardless of the impression it made, if there was reasonable money to be made, the 4E GSL would have drawn companies (like GR, and Necro, and others) back to producing 3PP materials for 4E. I think companies like Goodman Games wouldn't be striving to produce their own DCC RPG if the 4E GSL was a reasonably viable model. I think Paizo might even have some 4E conversion and/or crossover material if the 4E GSL model meant making money. I think GR and others who use the OGL for other projects would adopt a model closer to the GSL than the OGL if it was a better model. I see no reason in the current market to believe that a 5E GSL would be a success. I do see precedent and current evidence in the current market that the OGL has been and continues to be a successful model particularly when coupled with an additional trademark license.

So, we're both looking at the same evidence of a little over a decade and you feel a 5E GSL (a slightly altered current GSL) would be a success and that a 5E OGL is a non-starter for WotC legal while I believe a 5E OGL has a chance of success in the market and that a 5E GSL seems like a non-starter for most 3PPs and unlikely to produce successful results. We might have to agree to disagree and just see how things play out.

Naturally, if what you are saying is that there could be a new license that removes some of the GSL restrictions and makes it closer to the OGL, then that would have to be seen to be discussed. You are the guy, afterall, who introduced the need for direct evidence for opinions to be proven into this discussion. So, fair enough, what exactly are you talking about when you claim a 5E GSL could work? What's removed from the current GSL? Or to come at it from the other direction, what restrictions would you add to the OGL? But let's not call it the OGL or the GSL since those names are taken and really only cause confusion. What would the Dausuul System License (DSL) look like and what evidence do you have that it would work?

 

[Kalontas]

It looks to me like you both are arguing for the same thing, essentially. You both want the license to be far less restrictive, only Dausuul expresses more willingness for compromise with the current GSL. I wouldn't have problem with the GSL if it didn't have the following restrictions:
-The "you can't touch anything published by us or the books that were not mentioned in this version of GSL" - it would allow people to produce variant rules, and adjust to the new stuff quickly. Currently no one can write about Shardmind, because PHB3 is still not in the GSL.
-The "we can revoke it whenever we please" clause - meaning more 3PP would be willing to start producing something.

Without those, it essentially becomes OGL, but at the same time, it seems it's just what Dausuul wants from the "new GSL" - and I'm inclined to agree with that. It doesn't have to be identical to the old OGL, as long as it gives us more freedom to develop supplementary material.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I believe the OGL hurt WotC in the long term. As soon as WotC was ready to move to a new edition, the OGL became a hindrance. Even if 4E had stayed OGL, Paizo or another company could have recognized the market for those who wished to stay with 3E and we could still be right where we are today. The OGL did allow for some great innovations like MarkCMG's product, but it also allowed an edition discontinued by WotC to continue with full support. IME, that support is what keeps the majority of D&D players playing a certain edition. The gamers I've met like to buy new stuff, and although I am certain there are many people who can say with certainty that they would have never bought 4E whether other alternatives existed or not, IMO the majority would have come on board just like they did in the past.

 

[xechnao]

4e was not OGL, yet its pre-orders were higher than 3.xe.
This means that probably the OGL is irrelevant for the success of 5e. What matters the most is how well the game will be received by its fans and how much resistace in time it will have.
If 5e is not recognized as an improvement over the latter edition or is not recognized as the D&D that fans love, even if it were OGL it would most probably fail.

Especially now that Paizo is considered an up to par Wotc rival regarding D&D official rules for many fans, Wotc should never release 5e under the OGL.
Only if Wotc were confident that 5e were so good, that blew what fans have seen so far away by more than 1000 miles, could Wotc ever consider to release 5e under the OGL.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I think 4e would have went over much more smoothly had the GSL been more like the OGL. However, even if 5e went full-on OGL I don't think WotC would see much benefit to it. I think the divide in the D&D community is too wide to overcome, and Pathfinder has emerged as a major competitor.

I think the best thing WotC can do for D&D is to develop a full-featured DDI and VTT that lets you create custom rules, items, etc. In addition, WotC needs to support previous editions of D&D via the online tools and print. Heck, I think it might be a good idea to release updated books for 1e - in essence, WotC should make their own retroclone.

 

[Ahnehnois]

4e was not OGL, yet its pre-orders were higher than 3.xe.
This means that probably the OGL is irrelevant for the success of 5e. What matters the most is how well the game will be received by its fans and how much resistace in time it will have.

This ignore several important factors. First, that preorders are not the only measure of (financial) success. I would place more importance on the number of customers who actually knew what they were buying, later on.

Second that 3e (including its license) was at the time the definition of the brand name, and thus is probably responsible for those preorders.

I do think that the substance of what is in the game is more important than the license, but both are important.

I believe the OGL hurt WotC in the long term. As soon as WotC was ready to move to a new edition, the OGL became a hindrance. Even if 4E had stayed OGL, Paizo or another company could have recognized the market for those who wished to stay with 3E and we could still be right where we are today

When WotC went to a 'new edition' they decided to aggressively combat the existing game, openly deride its adherents, and radically redefine the design goals. If WotC had stayed OGL and instead revised 3.5e or created a new ruleset based on 3e, they might have maintained their market share. While not without its critics, the 3.0 to 3.5 transition resulted in most people converting to the latter, even though 3.0 was still available. There's no reason to think the same thing couldn't have happened again if handled right.

Would they have been able to satisfy critics of 3e, or attract new business while doing so? That's harder to say. But it's hard for me to see the OGL has a hindrance; its more like a check on the power of the company.

 

[kitsune9]

What would a D&D 5E look like under the OGL?

Not sure really. I think we would see more companies trying to get involved in the movement if it's just like the 3e OGL. Whether that would lead to a "gaming mecca" I don't know.

I'll have to wait out judgment to see if WotC will want to do an OGL or a GSL for 5e. I wouldn't get your hopes up.