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

[Kalontas]

This is true. But it is not true that 3.xe was a success because it was under the OGL. After all, as many people suggest, Wotc did not support the OGL beyond the core books and arcana unearthed.



No. This is your suggestion but it does not follow from any facts that it might also be true. After all, many 4e fans complain of rules and product bloat and if it were not for the DDI utilities they would have had a very difficult time to follow new products. Some third party publishers tried to publish for 4e but they stopped since their sales were very low. They believe that 4e fans did not want third party material because it were not compatible with the DDI online tools.



Maybe, maybe not. As noted above, a number of publishers tried to support 4e with the GSL but they did not have any luck in the market. OTOH, the OSR is experiencing significant growth. The OSR would never support 4e, even if it were OGL, yet it is doing better than 4e third party publishers.

Where do you see "maybe not" in the last paragraph? Did Paizo not try to do make 4E material, or did they not back off after seeing GSL? Both of those things are true, so it's a natural conclusion that with an OGL, there would be no Pathfinder (because Paizo would not have backed off of 4E).

In the second paragraph you're arguing that 3PP material is not a major staying factor for an edition. It isn't? Then what's holding the players outside the official material? Wizards can produce only so much material for D&D. With OGL, more people can add that material. More 3PP, more material. More material, more potential hooks for people. More hooks, more time spent playing. More time spent playing, more people still buying the official books seven years after game's release. Pretty clear and obvious logic.

WotC did not support OGL beyond core books... what... I'm not sure I understand that statement, as it stands now, it's going against what OGL is.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How many dollars did Arcana Evolved contribute to WotC's bottom line? Give me a creditable argument that it did, and we'll talk.

 

[Kalontas]

How many dollars did Arcana Evolved contribute to WotC's bottom line? Give me a creditable argument that it did, and we'll talk.

It's not a direct relation, so you can't count it. It's a long causation - long, but certain one. Once allowed, it will bring benefits.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

How many dollars did Arcana Evolved contribute to WotC's bottom line? Give me a creditable argument that it did, and we'll talk.

This I agree.

It's not a direct relation, so you can't count it. It's a long causation - long, but certain one. Once allowed, it will bring benefits.

Frankly I do not see the causation. I bough D&D stuff in the 3e era because it was D&D and I liked 3e (at least initially). Now from my personal prespective I also bought D20 games because they were D20 and so I felt that the learning curve would be light. But these games did not encourage me to buy any WoTC stuff. I bought a Paizo adventure path due to their reputation here.
If I can ever persuade my gaming buddies onto a VTT I would run it in 4e. So while i have no problem seeing the advantages for punters like mwin the OGL I am not at all convinced that there is much advantage in it for WoTC.

Now before someone brings up good adventrue support, a GLS that guaranteed that WoTC could not pull the licence from under them should be enough to encourage and adventure witing outfit, or am I missing something?

 

[Mark CMG]

WotC did not support OGL beyond core books... what... I'm not sure I understand that statement, as it stands now, it's going against what OGL is.

They added some things to the SRD 3.5 from the Epic Level Handbook, Deities and Demigods, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and they also OGL'd Unearthed Arcana and a couple of things from the MMII (there were even a couple of things from the OGC pool from outside companies that got used in UA). Plus, there was the d20 Modern material. IIRC, WotC support of the SRD tapered off in 2004/2005 and then just died.

 

[William Ronald]

I think that an OGL would be good for 5E. It might produce adventures and other products that would allow WotC to focus on the core rules. (A common complaint about WotC for the past decade is that other companies produce better adventures.

However, unless Pathfinder sales dropped precipitously, I doubt that Paizo would completely switch over to providing products for 5E. There is still the market that Pathfinder serves and I suspect that market to continue regardless of what WotC does. There are many players who like Pathfinder, and I am not sure that WotC can do anything to unite a fragmented market. It would truly take something special to reunite a market that has been fragmented for what will soon be four years. People have invested a lot in their chosen systems. So, I think that WotC would have a hard sell. Also, I think that several of the publishers other than WotC might take a once bitten, twice shy approach.

However, I have some reasons to doubt that WotC would release an OGL for 5E as Hasbro might be concerned with losing further market share. As was pointed out earlier, sometimes companies are very resistant to change.

OT -- Post number 4000!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If i was a wizard Exec my question how does this make money for Wizards?
TSR never had an OGL and as far as I know never had a problem recruiting talent. So I would not be convinced by 2.
If the gamer proselytizers are folk that publish games that use WoTC work to produce stuff that does not require anyone to buy WoTC stuff to play their games benifit WOTC.

Now I know many of the arguments that have been trotted out to show the value of the OGL to WoTC but that argument has been lost at senior management level at Wizards. If 5e is to be OGL something really convincing needs to be demonstrated to Wizards maangement otherwise it is not really a flyer.

Another model to look at is computer game mods - Bethesda has a long history of providing the construction kits for their games, and if you ask them (and they have been asked) they will tell you that the reason why is that their games sell better, longer, because of it.

In the case of 3e, WotC allowed other companies to play with the construction kit, and the game lasted well enough that a game built on those same roots is now outselling D&D proper by many accounts.

4e scaled back the construction kit, which has now made D&D the second best selling RPG, by those same accounts.

Folks like to tinker, and they like to see how other people have been tinkering - which in the case of 3.X lead to a rich and varied environment.

The Auld Grump

 

[Aldarc]

How many dollars did Arcana Evolved contribute to WotC's bottom line? Give me a creditable argument that it did, and we'll talk.

Call it market research. You can see what sort of products (and the issues they address) your customers are flocking to within the d20 system itself, and you can make changes or additions to draw them back in to line. WotC did not gain direct sales from AE, but they were able to incorporate a number of those ideas and features (e.g., racial levels) into their own products to provide those options for their customers.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Another model to look at is computer game mods - Bethesda has a long history of providing the construction kits for their games, and if you ask them (and they have been asked) they will tell you that the reason why is that their games sell better, longer, because of it.

In the case of 3e, WotC allowed other companies to play with the construction kit, and the game lasted well enough that a game built on those same roots is now outselling D&D proper by many accounts.

4e scaled back the construction kit, which has now made D&D the second best selling RPG, by those same accounts.

Folks like to tinker, and they like to see how other people have been tinkering - which in the case of 3.X lead to a rich and varied environment.

The Auld Grump

To be honent I think the point is valid but in my experience during hte 3.x era the bulk of the stuff I saw on shelves in the latter period were complete games that made no use or reference to WoTC product, the exception were Paizo adventure paths. Things may have been different in the US but I don't go there much.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

To be honent I think the point is valid but in my experience during hte 3.x era the bulk of the stuff I saw on shelves in the latter period were complete games that made no use or reference to WoTC product, the exception were Paizo adventure paths. Things may have been different in the US but I don't go there much.

For the most part, what I saw, or at least paid attention to, were big thick supplements that took D&D in new directions rather than replacing it.

There were exceptions, and there were also supplements that became complete games, but mostly I noticed supplements.

Oddly, or not so oddly, I think that those exceptions mostly happened after WotC tightened the D20 STL to prevent things like the Book of Naked Elf Cheesecake Erotic Fantasy.

The Classic Play Books by Mongoose, Vistas by Green Ronin, Stone to Steel by Monkeygod, Steam & Steel by E N Publishing, Sorcery & Steam by Fantasy Flight, Relics & Rituals by Sword & Sorcery Studios, etc..

Ones that started as supplements included Spycraft by AEG, and I believe the first D20 version of Babylon 5 by Mongoose.

The Auld Grump

 

[xechnao]

Definitely, 3.xe being published under the OGL has had some positive effects for Wotc, as it has also had some negative effects for Wotc.
It is not that the OGL can be only good or only bad.

Now, one has to weight how much positive, how much negative that was, balance them out and make an informed decision whether the net effect of the OGL is a positive or negative one.

Personally, I believe that the negative effects outweight the positive ones, judging by what we have seen regarding Pathfinder and the OSR. Also, contrary to what some have suggested, even if 4e were OGL, I doubt that we would not have seen something like Pathfinder or that 4e would have been more successful in the long term. The primary reason for success or failure is the game itself, regarding the expectations of its fans. If it is what fans want it to be, the game will succeed. If it is not, then not so much.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

...

The Classic Play Books by Mongoose, Vistas by Green Ronin, Stone to Steel by Monkeygod, Steam & Steel by E N Publishing, Sorcery & Steam by Fantasy Flight, Relics & Rituals by Sword & Sorcery Studios, etc..

Ones that started as supplements included Spycraft by AEG, and I believe the first D20 version of Babylon 5 by Mongoose.

The Auld Grump

Hmm, most of those I was unaware of, now I wonder how much was that my personal biases and how much was that they were not visible in front of me?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmm, most of those I was unaware of, now I wonder how much was that my personal biases and how much was that they were not visible in front of me?

Stores do not always stock things evenly - if your FLGS didn't stock them, then perhaps they were not there to see?

Me, I paid at least as much attention to supplements, perhaps more.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dausuul]

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?

Well, I don't know what 5E is going to look like, so I can't get into specifics there. But taking 4E as an example, the DSL would be pretty much like the OGL, except that the powers, feats, and race and class definitions in the Player's Handbook (and PHB2, PHB3, Martial Powers, etc.) would be product identity, along with the actual game rules such as combat and chargen.

On the other hand, you're free to reprint the statblocks for most monsters and possibly magic items--the stuff you need for adventures. Conveniently, 4E NPCs don't use the same rules as PCs any more, so your ability to stat up an NPC wizard is not hampered by being unable to use PC material.

You are the guy, afterall, who introduced the need for direct evidence for opinions to be proven into this discussion.

What I said was, "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?" I do not have access to WotC's market research, so I'm no more able to disentangle it than you.

I can point to statements by all of the major 3PPs around the time of 4E's release, indicating that they wanted to get on board with 4E but could not accept the terms of the GSL. This solution would eliminate all of the problems they cited; restrictions on cross-publishing, revocability of the license, and so forth. So I think a license of this sort would help to get 3PPs on board.

If they find there isn't any money in supporting 5E, of course, they'll get off again. But if that's the case, I don't believe opening up 5E completely would change anything.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, an odd thought - if not for the OGL then it is likely 4e would not be the game that it is today.

Many of the changes made o 4e were likely done to distance the game from terms that were used in the OGL.

Without the OGL, those changes would not have been necessary, and likely would not have occurred.

So even I can see one downside to the OGL.

More seriously, I think that 3e would have tanked much faster without the OGL - it was carried, in part, by the 3PP that the GSL has disenfranchised.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mark CMG]

If someone "reports" the OP (I don't think you can report your own post) then this can be shuffled over to the New Horizons Forum. (Thanks!)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

If someone "reports" the OP (I don't think you can report your own post) then this can be shuffled over to the New Horizons Forum. (Thanks!)

We'll just see about that!

As far as 5e being OGL, I think it would be tremendously good for Wizards, like it was tremendously good for them with 3e and it has been tremendously good for Paizo, and it would be tremendously good for both the community and the industry as a whole. It's really the direction that we all need to be moving in if we wish to survive in the face of piracy and competition from increasingly sophisticated video games.

But that's not the direction that Wizards is going to go. Not right now. The OGL didn't do what they wanted it to do-- shuffle all the low-volume, low-margin stuff onto 3PP-- so they pretty much got rid of everyone who thought it was a good idea in the first place. To my admittedly very limited knowledge, there isn't a single serious advocate of the OGL in WotC management right now, and the Hasbro people were opposed to the OGL all along.

edit: Nope. You can report your own posts just fine. I've reported this post, so hopefully the mods will see that it needs to be moved to New Horizons. Also, hopefully, they won't ban me for the incessant trolling and asshattery that I reported myself for.

 

[Mark CMG]

edit: Nope. You can report your own posts just fine. I've reported this post, so hopefully the mods will see that it needs to be moved to New Horizons. Also, hopefully, they won't ban me for the incessant trolling and asshattery that I reported myself for.

Better you than me!


(Thanks, VK!)

 

[Nellisir]

I don't see WotC moving back to the OGL, however much I might desire it. I think they will loosen up the GSL, but not nearly as much as the OGL. Right or wrong, I think many in WotC identify the 3pp game systems based off the d20 system as harmful to D&D, and the newest iteration of the license will aim to cut those off while still encouraging fan-based creations.

Something as simple as putting a page and font size restriction in the new license could have some success, ie derived products could not exceed 32 pages (plus cover), and a minimum font size of 8 (whatever that is in picas and various measurements). I don't think Arcana Unearthed would have ever gone to press if it had to be printed and sold as 10 different products.

 

[Nylanfs]

Well There are things I both like and dislike about the OGL and GSL. I like the GSL in that it references the items in books, instead of the separate SRD from the OGL. Which is great because then 3PP publishers don't have to wait until the errata FINALLY gets into the SRD.

Of course the original GSL has the poison pill (and several other objectionable) clauses.

One thing that I would really, REALLY like to see , if there is a future OGL/GSL for 5e, is something like the following clause.

"Every publisher must CLEARLY identify OGC content that they use in sourcebooks and the original source. This may be listed on a business website as opposed to listed in each sourcebook."

This is a direct result of my work with PCGen, there are so many publishers using other's works, there should be a direct way to ensure that the original creator is recognized for their work. This way it makes my job easier, AND the addided benifit of making the Sec. 15 of the OGL page WAY clearer.