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

[Nylanfs]

And an added comment, tides rise all boats.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

And 3pp stay away from 5e in droves, Pathfinder remains holding the #1 spot....

WotC would do better not having a 3pp license at all than using a 32 page choke chain. That would be an insult, not a license.

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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 added benefit of making the Sec. 15 of the OGL page WAY clearer.

This on the other hand.

I used section 15 as a shopping list on occasion. Found some good books that way. (Swashbuckling Adventures by AEG had a particularly tasty section 15.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Mark CMG]

I used section 15 as a shopping list on occasion. Found some good books that way.

I picked up some good ones by this method too. I like the idea of a more explicit section 15 and OGC designations because it can be difficult to know just what stuff came from where at a glance. That seems like a reasonable addition to expect from an OGL 2.0 but I doubt you can tell people what they can and cannot make. I think the OGL is a "how" contract not a "what" guide.

 

[Nellisir]

WotC would do better not having a 3pp license at all than using a 32 page choke chain. That would be an insult, not a license.

I'm not saying I favor it in the least. However, it would eliminate most, or all, of the print 3pp, while leaving a clear field for the supplemental rules pdf market (ie supergenius games, etc, etc).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm not saying I favor it in the least. However, it would eliminate most, or all, of the print 3pp, while leaving a clear field for the supplemental rules pdf market (ie supergenius games, etc, etc).

It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.

A recipe for failure that WotC has already sampled with the GSL.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

/snip

2) Feeding game design innovations back into 5E. People forget that many of 4E's innovations can be traced to Mearls, and Mearls was an OGL Master before he was a WotC Developer. Who knows who the next Mearls is waiting to be tapped for a future D&D?

Everyone who dislikes the OGL can feel free to tell me how wrong I am and how unnecessary it is.

And yet, Mearls isn't a designer anymore. Monte Cook is designing. And Monte came to D&D by way of Rolemaster, not OGL. For every OGL designer you can name, there's one that isn't. Not that Monte didn't embrace OGL, he certainly did. I get that. But, the argument that gaming innovation comes from OGC isn't exactly accurate considering the innovations for 3e came from (at least in part) Rolemaster.

 

[Tallifer]

The only benefit I can imagine right now is that the third party publishers could make adventur paths and setting guides. That is a thankless task for the Wizards, because they cannot please every customer. If other companies made stuff for Planescape, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Greyhawk and even new settings, that would let the Wizards off the hook. The Wizards could even decide right from the start to release certain setting properties and never worry about them ever after. It would also keep the Dragon and Dungeon magazines less cluttered.

Would third parties be willing to make that stuff however? Or do they only want to make their own retroclones and variant systems?

 

[drothgery]

It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.

A recipe for failure that WotC has already sampled with the GSL.

As opposed to merely almost empty, which we got with 3.5, despite having the exact same licensing as 3.0. And with pre-3e D&D, where all licensing was purely on an ad hoc, company-to-company basis.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

As opposed to merely almost empty, which we got with 3.5, despite having the exact same licensing as 3.0. And with pre-3e D&D, where all licensing was purely on an ad hoc, company-to-company basis.

I hate to tell you this, but there was a lot of 3PP stuff for 3.5.

Not as much as for 3.0, but I easily have fifty or more PDF and print books for 3.5. [Swedish Chef]Here we make the smorgasbord! Mmm, bork, bork, bork![/Swedish Chef] I loved the OGL.

Really, if they do what you suggest then they will fail. The 3PP won't switch, and 5e will make 4e's time on Earth seem lengthy. (Why yes, I do think that it is do or die time for D&D, why do you ask?) It was one of the main reasons that 3PP decided to skip 4e. WotC even decided to drop that when they revised the GSL. Doing it again would be stupid!

The Auld Grump

 

[Nellisir]

It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.

If you've got 50 3pp pdfs & print books for 3.5, then you can't have been trying. I've got half that in print books on one shelf right now, and that's what's left after having gotten rid of almost all my 3e/3.5e material. I've got far, far, far more than that in pdf...and the majority of those pdfs are less than 36 pages. Of the ones that are longer, most could be broken into smaller pdfs.

A page restriction on 3pp, while otherwise leaving the OGL intact, would not kill or "empty" the 3pp field. It would empty the print market and focus what remained on adventures, which just isn't a good niche for print anymore, but the pdf publishers would remain and adapt.

And just to be clear, I think it would be a bad idea. I wouldn't like it, and I don't want it. I don't even think it's likely. But WotC is going to look for a middle ground between the OGL and the GSL.

 

[drothgery]

I hate to tell you this, but there was a lot of 3PP stuff for 3.5.

The 3PP D&D market completely collapsed with 3.5 (or at least the high end, production values at roughly WotC's level component of it did). It's ludicrous to pretend otherwise. That's when Green Ronin and a lot of other major players (as much as 3PPs were major players) decided to give up on D&D and focus on their own homegrown systems, because WotC hit them with an unexpected edition change (and no matter what people think of the magnitude of change between 3.0 and 3.5, it was a big enough change that books designed for 3.0 didn't sell anymore, which meant 3PPs were stuck with a lot of books they could not sell).

 

[Mark CMG]

If you've got 50 3pp pdfs & print books for 3.5, then you can't have been trying. I've got half that in print books on one shelf right now, and that's what's left after having gotten rid of almost all my 3e/3.5e material. I've got far, far, far more than that in pdf...and the majority of those pdfs are less than 36 pages. Of the ones that are longer, most could be broken into smaller pdfs.

A page restriction on 3pp, while otherwise leaving the OGL intact, would not kill or "empty" the 3pp field. It would empty the print market and focus what remained on adventures, which just isn't a good niche for print anymore, but the pdf publishers would remain and adapt.

And just to be clear, I think it would be a bad idea. I wouldn't like it, and I don't want it. I don't even think it's likely. But WotC is going to look for a middle ground between the OGL and the GSL.

FWIW, I think you are probably correct on all counts. I also happen to think that anything short of just using the OGL as it stands will be problematic. I could see them trying to release an OGL 2.0 but the track record they have in messing up such things leaves me believing their self-interest would scuttle such an attempt.

 

[Nellisir]

FWIW, I think you are probably correct on all counts. I also happen to think that anything short of just using the OGL as it stands will be problematic. I could see them trying to release an OGL 2.0 but the track record they have in messing up such things leaves me believing their self-interest would scuttle such an attempt.

The arguments (I mean internal WotC arguements) can be broken down several ways. The OGL supporters in WotC have the short end of the rope, because to many people OGL is always going to mean "give it all away for free". Pathfinder can be argued as an OGL success, but it can also be argued as a rule success; that the growth & success of PF is due to rules and not licensing. I think publishers took a lot longer to understand the OGL than WotC thought, and that the full ramifications of it are still being worked out, 12 years later. Fully mature game systems and variants using the OGL didn't appear and catch until 2005 or 2006, the notable exception being Mutants & Masterminds. Those "mature" products are the most obvious direct challenger to the D&D brand, and they will appear much faster if 5e goes the full-on OGL route. Publishers, and to a lesser extent the public, have become much more experienced and educated about licenses, copyright issues, and open-source movements since 2000.

The OGL, from WotC's perspective, was too soft. The GSL was too hard. And now WotC is going to try Little Bear's bed, and hope that it's just right. They're going to look to foster smaller, shorter, 3pp products, and eliminate or reduce larger, "mature" ones. They're going to encourage fans to publish material, and discourage most (but probably not all) of the publishers.

They'll learn from the OSR and the publishers that did 4e without the GSL that the cat is out of the bag and stuff will be published will they or nay. But that's the hard route. They'll try to create an easier route, with a few more restrictions, but a few more benefits.

And for a few quick numbers: RPGNow has 5,367 d20/OGL/3e products listed. Pathfinder has 1,382. Mutants & Masterminds has 378. 4e/GSL has 367. Mastercraft (which I think grew out of Spycraft) has 56. Arcana Evolved has 10.

 

[Hussar]

FWIW, I think you are probably correct on all counts. I also happen to think that anything short of just using the OGL as it stands will be problematic. I could see them trying to release an OGL 2.0 but the track record they have in messing up such things leaves me believing their self-interest would scuttle such an attempt.

While we butt heads over this issue, this I agree with. If they actually are going to go with some sort of open system, I think that going OGL is probably a better move than trying to build a sort of fenced in OGL 2.0, which, as you say, will likely get scuttled in the details.

 

[Mark CMG]

While we butt heads over this issue, this I agree with. If they actually are going to go with some sort of open system, I think that going OGL is probably a better move than trying to build a sort of fenced in OGL 2.0, which, as you say, will likely get scuttled in the details.

And let me give you credit for something that was an idea that I think you were poking around near the fringe of. While I think the DDI doesn't play nice with the OGL by design, and that online tools could play nice with the OGL, I think the underlying problem is a matter of corporate policy at WotC and it's the prevailing attitutde within some quarters of WotC that lessens the chance of an OGL 5E and a DDI that is in harmony with an OGL 5E. We will see.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Mark, the primary problems I see with OGL vs DDI are practical ones, not ideological.

The primary one being how do you compete with free? Ema showed how quickly and relatively easily you could bang out an online character generator using WOTC's material. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see the same sort of thing happen again.

The second one is how do you actually include OGL material into the DDI? The 3pp didn't exactly cover themselves in glory when it came to editing (not that WOTC is all that much better). Having poorly edited entries in the DDI reflects badly on WOTC, even if it has nothing really to do with them. It's quite possible that people would not draw the distinction.

Thirdly, is the OGL crowd large enough to make it worth it? Again, I have no idea. But, adding OGL material to the DDI is not free. It will cost WOTC, if nothing else, they'd have to check that OGL material added actually WAS OGL. Would they recoup those costs and make a profit from it?

Lastly, how much control should WOTC exercise over what gets loaded onto the DDI? Is it simply enough that someone slaps a Section 15 onto something and uploads it? Or, should there be some sort of quality review process? Given that part of WOTC's attraction is high production values and a reputation for pretty decent quality, I'm thinking they'd actually have to review every submission before greenlighting it's upload. Again, is the potential money coming in worth the expense?

I never really meant to get into a pissing match over this. I just think that these are pretty serious concerns that are not being addressed when people talk about how this or that game should be OGL. It's all well and good to say that everything should be OGL, but, there really needs some serious review over whether this makes economic sense or not.

/edit - I really have to learn to count.

 

[Mark CMG]

I hear you and acknowledge that some laxity in OGC designation was clearly seen in the past. The customization of the DDI issue is one that probably needs to be addressed anyway, since there are many who want to tinker on their own with or without 3PP material. Proper designation of OGC might be the only avenue of inclusion, thus a problem that fixes another problem, though I have no illusions of how much of a task it would be to make customization possible, again, with or without 3PP material inclusion.

As far as outside and/or 3PP online tools is concerned, the trump card always held by WotC is how much material they hold in reserve either through not declaring some things as OGC (like advencement rules were held back in the past) and holding some things back as Product Identity.

I don't know enough about the programming of DDI to be able to speak fully to the logistics of how 3PP material might be included in a way that WotC would feel legally comfortable. However, 3PP material usage would likely require two prongs: the first would involve a level of trust coupled with licensing which we know is possible in the past since the mags and other licenses were once entrusted to outside 3PP like Paizo and Margaret Weis's Dragonlance imprint (as said, this would likely require some additional licensing) and the second prong would probably need to come from whatever 3PP OGC material WotC designers felt enhanced their in-house vision of 5E much in the way they chose to use some 3PP OGC for Unearthed Arcana. So, those precedents are there, they just haven't been explored in terms of the DDI or online tools.

The customization of the tools by individual subscribers would likely need two parallel approaches as well: the first being approved material sanctioned by WotC that is added by WotC or trusted/licensed 3PP and which DDI subscribers could use to augment their games and share, since it is fully approved, and the second being material individual subscribers could add for their own usage but not share. Whether there could be some process for individual subscribers to add, seek approval, and then share once approved, would be something to explore but I doubt that would be something WotC could take on financially.

 

[rogueattorney]

I think 5e would benefit greatly from being OGL based on the little WotC has said about it.

It seems that they are going to start off with a relatively basic group of core rules, with the intention of letting DMs mod it however they wish. It'd be a lot easier for DMs to mod it that way if there were a plethora of compatible resources on the market.

I'm not a 4e player, but it seems to me - and this is entirely an outsider's perspective - that 4e would have rolled out much more smoothly if there had been a lot more third party support in the areas that Wizards didn't particularly support - I'm thinking mainly adventures and some ritual supplements.

To me, it would be a case of making the same mistake all over again if 5e weren't OGL.

All that said, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that WotC doesn't go the OGL route. I could see them maybe working out some individual licenses which are more favorable (to the 3rd party) than the 4e GSL with a select few third parties, but I don't see them going the open route again.

But then again, they did just announce that they're going to re-print the 1e core rules, which is something I thought would never ever happen in a zillion years. So maybe they'll surprise me some more.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm not a 4e player, but it seems to me - and this is entirely an outsider's perspective - that 4e would have rolled out much more smoothly if there had been a lot more third party support in the areas that Wizards didn't particularly support - I'm thinking mainly adventures and some ritual supplements.

I don't know about ritual supplements, but adventures have never sold well enough to make anyone want to mess with them (the exception that proves the rule being Dungeon Crawl Classics, which did pretty much nothing but adventures, and managed it by dint of specialization, quantity, and pdf sales. IMO.) The theory as I recall it was that Dungeon would provide the adventures. When I DMed 4e, I didn't have any trouble finding at least 10 1st-2nd level adventures on the WotC website. I just ended up hating the rules.