D&D 5E Hope for an open GSL?

[Alzrius]

It's interesting. As good as the licensing was for 3rd edition, it was part of the cocktail that created Paizo and Pathfinder (not the only factor, but one of them).

Given that they've clearly decided to shift their focus away from creating new players, and towards bringing back those that jumped ship, it would be a big surprise to me if they went with a very open license again.

I dunno, though. Anything's possible at this point.

This isn't wrong, but I wonder just how much of a factor the OGL was.

Paizo was created not to publish OGL materials, but to publish Dragon and Dungeon magazine; they switched their focus after the magazines were yanked away from them.

Likewise, they decided to go with Pathfinder as its own RPG largely because there was no word on the role of third-party companies in Fourth Edition for such a long time that Paizo simply had to go in another direction to remain financially solvent.

Had WotC handled the issues of the magazines better, and had a proper plan in place for third-party publishers in 4E from day one, then even with the OGL's existence they could very likely have brought Paizo on board with 4E.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Had WotC handled the issues of the magazines better, and had a proper plan in place for third-party publishers in 4E from day one, then even with the OGL's existence they could very likely have brought Paizo on board with 4E.

I don't doubt that for a second -- as I said, it was part of the cocktail -- then there's the handling of the OGL and Paizo specifically that resulted in a strong enough movement to give rise to Pathfinder and it's broad support.

My point, though, is that given that experience, I would be surprised if WOTC strategists could get permission again from on high to offer such an open OGL.

I mean, let's say you step on a dog's tail while it's off leash and get bit: there are two lessons you might learn from the experience. Sure, we might hope that you stop stepping on the dog, but odds are that dog's going to be on a leash in the future, too.

-rg

 

[Yora]

Funny this is that making the OGL for 3rd Edition didn't do any damage. Removing it for the 4th Edition did however.

 

[Mark CMG]

"A dog is only a dog until you're face to face, then he's Mister Dog." - Jamaican Proverb


The best way to guarantee any licensing (OGL, modified GSL, etc.) will make little difference to the success or failure of 5E is to put off announcing and implementing it. Publishing that includes quality products and that is tied to outside properties requires more lead time. If WotC doesn't move soon, they are signaling 3PP and customers that they aren't taking any licensing seriously, whether that comes from above the designers (legal, management, etc.) or throughout the full team. I tend to end these posts with "We will see" but I have a feeling we are already beginning to see at this point.

 

[Yora]

Though I think they might benefit from it now more than ever. D&D is having a hard time with 4th Edition, for whatever reason, getting prematurely canceled and a fan base that is not only split, but also extremely cautious. Neither 4th Ed. players nor fans of older editions will jump on this train simply because it's the new edition of D&D and reflect on it's quality only after a year or so of releases has passed.
When 5th Edition comes out, many people will eye it with extreme scrutiny and may decide to ditch it very early on. Having strong 3rd party support would allow for thinking "Well, I am not a huge fan, but other companies may turn this into something I totaly love". Even if WotC does barely make any profit of these people, it keeps the rules system popular and it will keep being discussed by word of mouth and in online forums. If the massage is "we do it this way, and everything you'll get will be like this", people who are not smiten by it may very well just lost interest. And 5th Edition bombing will permanently break D&Ds back.

 

[MacMathan]

Allowing old editions to exist with near official support ala Paizo/Pathfinder is a terrible business plan.

Ask Apple, your device won't work with the new OS, oh well guess you have to upgrade to our latest and greatest, NOT we won't support you but here is the phone number of another company who we allow to make things for our old hardware.

IMHO the OSL did nothing for me as a DM and player, it caused a glut, it caused a lot of people I know to lose a lot of money and it caused great division in certain parts of the community.

Imagine the sales difference for 4e if 3e had faded away to the levels of 2e/1e/BECMI?

Hopefully tighter control of the digital future will allow some recoup. When 50million/year is the goal sharing the market is not an option.

 

[Nylanfs]

"A dog is only a dog until you're face to face, then he's Mister Dog." - Jamaican Proverb


The best way to guarantee any licensing (OGL, modified GSL, etc.) will make little difference to the success or failure of 5E is to put off announcing and implementing it. Publishing that includes quality products and that is tied to outside properties requires more lead time. If WotC doesn't move soon, they are signaling 3PP and customers that they aren't taking any licensing seriously, whether that comes from above the designers (legal, management, etc.) or throughout the full team. I tend to end these posts with "We will see" but I have a feeling we are already beginning to see at this point.

Exactly, if WotC wants 5e to succeed (as opposed to 4e) they NEED to reach out to the 3rd party publishers. Not to say that there aren't good publishers for 4e, (Dias Ex Machina I'm looking at you), but most of the publishers were VERY turned off by the GSL debacle.

In order to be able to turn around those bad feelings, they need to talk early about the the license with the publishers. And let it know publicly.

 

[Nylanfs]

IMHO the OSL did nothing for me as a DM and player, it caused a glut, it caused a lot of people I know to lose a lot of money and it caused great division in certain parts of the community.

Holy. Crap.

So by that logic since not every novel published isn't the that genre's equivalent of War and Peace only a few authors should be allowed to publish?

That's a little snobbish don't you think?

 

[El Mahdi]

...Imagine the sales difference for 4e if 3e had faded away to the levels of 2e/1e/BECMI?...

I think it would have taken significantly long enough for 3E to fade to those kind of levels that it wouldn't have helped sales of 4E at all - that is if 3E ever faded to levels near other previous editions. Because of the OGL, even if there hadn't been Pathfinder, 3E would have likely remained at a significant level of gamers for decades. 4E was just sooo different that it was simply never going to bring in a significant number of those gamers.

So in my opinion, imagining what this might have been like is entirely moot, as I don't think it would have ever happened.

...When 50million/year is the goal sharing the market is not an option.

And this part is completely inapplicable IMO. If you make a game people like, they'll buy it. Sure, there's only so much money each individual gamer has to spend on games, but I honestly don't think the market is fully exploiting the potential of their customers. Multiple good games can exist at the same time and all hit their profit goals. But a game that just doesn't grab the imagination of enough people simply won't. I don't think that in a case like that, having to "share the market" really matters. If people don't want it, people won't buy it...and having enough money to afford it won't change that.

 

[Nylanfs]

So if anyone is going to PaxEast (and is following any of the OGL topics), try and corner somebody that has license info. Even if it's just a "It's currently being discussed"