And 3pp stay away from 5e in droves, Pathfinder remains holding the #1 spot....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.
This on the other hand.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.
I used section 15 as a shopping list on occasion. Found some good books that way.
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).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.
It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.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).
/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.![]()
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.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.
I hate to tell you this, but there was a lot of 3PP stuff for 3.5.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.
It would also eliminate all interest in the game on the part of the 3PP, and leave a clear field. Clear as in empty.
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).I hate to tell you this, but there was a lot of 3PP stuff for 3.5.
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.
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.
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.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.