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