D&D 5E (2014) Hope for an open GSL?

[Remus Lupin]

Between the OGL and farming out Dungeon & Dragon magazine to Paizo, they basically handed the keys to the D&D business to them.

But the Paizo took the keys and drove a very successful new version of the rules onto the lot, one that for many of us is superior to the new model that WotC tried to sell us.

Whatever the other merits or demerits of the OGL might be, for me the fact that we as players of D&D weren't put in a position of either having to accept the new model or continue to drive our unsupported old jalopy around is the greatest advantage FOR THE PLAYER of the OGL. It's not much of an advantage for WotC, I grant, but that's because, I think, WotC forgot why it created the OGL in the first place and didn't use it properly.

But from the perspective of the player, the OGL was pure win.

 

[Mark CMG]

Are you trying to prove that Essentials is a re-release? I don't thk that's controversial, given that it is the official raison d'etre of Essentials.

Seems we agree in principle with alternate views on what changes are important or significant but I think we've both hashed this out enough for a thread that isn't geared toward this topic so I'm going to drop continued discussion of the details unless a separate thread is started. I'm not even sure, at this point, if Essentials and the 4E original core books are still in print so the point may largely be moot.

 

[Mercule]

My interest in 5e having an OGL is directly proportional to how good of a game I think it is. If I end up liking the game, I'll appreciate it having the opportunity to exist in perpetuity. If I don't, I'll appreciate it ending it's run without having the opportunity to split the D&D fan base as much.

During the 5e run, I really don't care one way or the other. I have/had a few third party products from 3e, but I didn't typically find anything besides the modules to be particularly interesting -- and I tend to home brew both setting and adventures.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Just out of curiosity, if 5E were to be released under the OGL, would you be against buying it (assuming they otherwise do a good job designing the game)?

Oh, certainly not. From a purely personal point of view, I LOVE OGL material. Like I've repeatedly stated, well more than half of my D&D material is OGL.

My issue with the OGL is purely from a business point of view, not a "what makes great games" perspective.

BTW, just because you can mix and match edition material doesn't change the fact that 3.5 replaced 3.0, whereas Essentials is specifically designed to work side by side and 4e, unlike 3e, continues to be supported. I'm frankly baffled how you can call Essentials a new edition. How can something that is specifically designed to work side by side with an edition, while continuing support is being given to the base rules, possibly be called a new edition?

 

[BryonD]

BTW, just because you can mix and match edition material doesn't change the fact that 3.5 replaced 3.0, whereas Essentials is specifically designed to work side by side and 4e, unlike 3e, continues to be supported. I'm frankly baffled how you can call Essentials a new edition. How can something that is specifically designed to work side by side with an edition, while continuing support is being given to the base rules, possibly be called a new edition?

When talking straight and not playing games I completely agree with you. Essentials is absolutely NOT a new edition. But it is also baffling to be so absolutely clear on that and yet try to declare 3.5 a new edition on what amounts to a technicality and in hindsight a business blunder.

Yes, 3.5 replaced the 3.0 core. But to declare that an open and shut case for "new edition" is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in lack of thoughtfulness.

Look at the marketing and market position of 3E when 3.5 came out. It was HUGE. A lot of people, with some reasonable evidence to back them up, point at 3.5 as the start of the decline of 3E. But regardless of whether or not 3.5 had that effect, the point about the VAST popularity of 3E when 3.5 came out flies in the face of any claim that a "new edition" was wanted, needed, or intended. There was such a massive groundswell of people playing 3E that the feedback was intense. And a lot of good points were made about places where 3E could be "tuned up". And with that many people playing, it *seemed* like a great way to sell a bunch of books a second time.

As much as I personally think that 3.5 DID improve on greatness, I'll also readily agree that it wasn't done with charity in the heart of WotC (not that a business need have charity in its heart) and I'll also agree that the unintended consequences were notable. But the key point is that the driving force behind 3.5 was the huge SUCCESS of 3E.

Now look at Essentials. 4E came out of the starting gates with a bang. And then the engine fell out. 3.5 was marketed at 3E players. 4E was sold as an edition to bring in vast numbers of new players. And a handful of months later Essentials was marketed at all those people out there NOT playing 4E. (Remember all that talk about the massive result that were going to flow from non-gamers seeing it on Target shelves?)

Essentials isn't a new edition. But you don't have any room to express bafflement or dismay or anything else if you want to demand an even more absurd claim.

In the end the key element of new editions is an effort to re-boot popularity. And by that realistic standard it is more reasonable to call Essentials a "new edition" that was strategically designed to fit side by side the old edition than it is to call the rather cynical milking of the 3E marketplace in the form of 3.5 a "new edition".

 

[Hussar]

As much as I personally think that 3.5 DID improve on greatness, I'll also readily agree that it wasn't done with charity in the heart of WotC (not that a business need have charity in its heart) and I'll also agree that the unintended consequences were notable. But the key point is that the driving force behind 3.5 was the huge SUCCESS of 3E.

Umm, no? The creation of 3.5 was in the works from the second 3e released. However, the original idea that it would replace 3.0 some 5 years after 3e released, when sales started to stagnate. A perfectly reasonable business model with a proven track record.

So, if sales of 3.0 were so fantastic, why was 3.5 released 2 years early? Why spend all the money releasing a new edition if sales were still booming?

The only reason to pump out a new edition is flagging sales. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. It's far too costly and risky an undertaking to do if you are still selling well.

Essentials, OTOH, because it wasn't a new edition, takes a somewhat different tack. Essentials was meant as an alternative path into D&D from core. Core is for people like you and me who know what gaming is and can take a 1000 page rule book and play. Essentials was never targeted at us. It was targeted at a new, newbie demographic. Which, right from the outset of 4e, was always a goal for WOTC. 4e's primary focus was always to try to draw in new players.

3.5 was directly targetted at existing 3.0 players. It was, in no way, targetted at new gamers. It was a replacement, plain and simple. So, what I don't understand is how you can think that sales of 3e were so fantastic, when 3.5 releases two years early?

 

[Iosue]

Not that it'll settle arguments, but 3.5e and Essentials are each their own thing, unprecedented in D&D publishing. Previous to 3.5, neither TSR or WotC had completely replaced their product line without calling it a new edition. The relation of 3.5 to 3.0 was similar to that of 2e to 1e, so I can see where Hussar is coming from. On the flip side, 3.5 was planned from the start, unlike 2e, or AD&D, and unlike the consolidation and clarification of rules cruft that was 2e, or the creation of new rules like AD&D, or the thorough redesign that was 3.0; it was the same game, just tweaked and errata'd.

Previous to Essentials, neither had ever created a co-current line to run alongside the main product line, and yet completely compatible. The re-release of the 2e Core books was kinda like Essentials, in that it didn't require new splats or other books, and was in essentially a repackaging of old material in a new format. On the other hand, unlike Essentials, it wasn't targeted at a distinct audience, with a whole new rulebook format to facilitate that new approach to the game.

Not that this will stop arguments, I imagine. But I think we're in apples and oranges territory.

 

[Grazzt]

Umm, no? The creation of 3.5 was in the works from the second 3e released. However, the original idea that it would replace 3.0 some 5 years after 3e released, when sales started to stagnate. A perfectly reasonable business model with a proven track record.

So, if sales of 3.0 were so fantastic, why was 3.5 released 2 years early? Why spend all the money releasing a new edition if sales were still booming?

The only reason to pump out a new edition is flagging sales. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. It's far too costly and risky an undertaking to do if you are still selling well.

Essentials, OTOH, because it wasn't a new edition, takes a somewhat different tack. Essentials was meant as an alternative path into D&D from core. Core is for people like you and me who know what gaming is and can take a 1000 page rule book and play. Essentials was never targeted at us. It was targeted at a new, newbie demographic. Which, right from the outset of 4e, was always a goal for WOTC. 4e's primary focus was always to try to draw in new players.

3.5 was directly targetted at existing 3.0 players. It was, in no way, targetted at new gamers. It was a replacement, plain and simple. So, what I don't understand is how you can think that sales of 3e were so fantastic, when 3.5 releases two years early?

I believe Ryan Dancey came out and said that 3.5 was released early not because sales of 3.0 were bad, but they weren't at the level that Hasbro wanted. So, sales may have been great for 3.0; they just weren't what Hasbro considered successful.

 

[Hussar]

I believe Ryan Dancey came out and said that 3.5 was released early not because sales of 3.0 were bad, but they weren't at the level that Hasbro wanted. So, sales may have been great for 3.0; they just weren't what Hasbro considered successful.

Ah, yes, well, there is always this to consider too. How do you define "success" depends a lot on who you ask.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Now, if you want a discussion of whether Hasbro buying WotC was good for the hobby or not, I believe you'd find a much greater consensus here.