D&D 5E Hope for an open GSL?

[harpy]

From the Escapist:

"We'll have more information on the GSL as it relates to the next edition in the near future. Personally, I have a copy of 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' on the shelf at work," Mearls said, admitting the landmark essay regarding open source software systems impacts his views on the subject. "From my days as a programmer and as a freelance RPG designer, the bulk of my work involved open platforms which did a lot for a game that relies so much on individual creativity."

This is one of the big issues for me. A new GSL needs to be a lot more like the OGL to make 5e compelling to me. If they want to control the market and content through some elaborate set of online tools that's fine, but there fundamentally needs to be acknowledgement that the system is a player's game and not just a trough that we have to line up to feed at.

I'd certainly hope that the anti-OGL crowed at WotC has learned their lesson and are going to back down. They are not supposed to be in control, the players are supposed to be in control.

 

[Rechan]

It would be nice if they opened the 4e GSL so that someone can support 4e when WotC stops.

 

[Matt James]

I'd certainly hope that the anti-OGL crowed at WotC has learned their lesson and are going to back down. They are not supposed to be in control, the players are supposed to be in control.

This is both confusing and scary. Are you saying that the owners of the IP should not be in control?

 

[Jawsh]

I'd say this is my #1 issue with regard to support for the new edition.

Partly because of the principle of open gaming content, but also because I believe I will get a better game if it's open to input from 3rd party sources, in addition to WotC.

I invested in 3E because I made my own material and labelled it "Open Content". So what 5E has to do is the same thing, only better and more open.

 

[Mark CMG]

This is both confusing and scary. Are you saying that the owners of the IP should not be in control?

I cannot speak for harpy but I will mention as an aside that the OGL doesn't cede control of IP, though it does allow for easy sharing of some of it.

 

[IronWolf]

A new GSL needs to be a lot more like the OGL to make 5e compelling to me.

I tend to agree. I am still forming my thoughts, but the openness of the OGL really played a part in making 3.x a good system to use as it does Pathfinder today. I like 3PP to have an easier time of supporting the system of my choice, I like tools that make my life easier without having to rely on the game manufacturer to support or provide them.

 

[dmccoy1693]

One thing I love with press releases like this are finding the small clues. Mearls specifically mentioned 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' immediately after the GSL so that tells me that's a hint as to future plans.

The essay's central thesis is Raymond's proposition that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (which he terms Linus' Law): the more widely available the source code is for public testing, scrutiny, and experimentation, the more rapidly all forms of bugs will be discovered. In contrast, Raymond claims that an inordinate amount of time and energy must be spent hunting for bugs in the Cathedral model, since the working version of the code is available only to a few developers.

link. There's more about the book which gives me hopeful feelings about the future of 4E Open Gaming.

 

[Jawsh]

One thing I love with press releases like this are finding the small clues. Mearls specifically mentioned 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar' immediately after the GSL so that tells me that's a hint as to future plans.

Maybe you're forgetting, but Mike Mearls was heavily involved in 4E, which was not open. Obviously Mike wasn't able to convince the right people at WotC that 4E should have been open. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes in open gaming, not because he has some book on his shelf, but because he spent a fair portion of his career with stuff he could only write because of the OGL. All we can hope for is that he has managed to get more clout since then.

Does 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar' have tips on how to talk to stubborn management in it?

 

[dmccoy1693]

Maybe you're forgetting, but Mike Mearls was heavily involved in 4E, which was not open. Obviously Mike wasn't able to convince the right people at WotC that 4E should have been open. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes in open gaming, not because he has some book on his shelf, but because he spent a fair portion of his career with stuff he could only write because of the OGL. All we can hope for is that he has managed to get more clout since then.

I'm quite certain that Mearls believes in open gaming. But I'm trying to read (possibly to much) into what he's saying about what the company's plans for the future are.

Its more or less a code. C&tB is a pro-open source code piece. So by referencing C&tB, he's saying that we have reason to expect Wizards will make a pro-open development environment. Or atleast that is what I am reading into what he is saying.

While Mearls was part of the 4E system development team, I'm more than willing to bet that he had little to do with licensing. He may have talked to his boss or those with more direct control over it, but I highly doubt that he had any direct influence on how the GSL took shape.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm hoping that WotC will post the final version of 5E under the OGL. By now they've had ample time and evidence to show that the OGL helped them when they used it, and the GSL hurt them.

If they post 5E under the OGL, it would (I think) go a long way to restoring goodwill towards them in the RPG community. It certainly would make me warm up to them, and 5E, a lot.