D&D 5E L&L for 6/2

[Phoenix8008]

I think it is definitely a typo. My FLGS where I have it pre-ordered shows the July 15 date....though as a premier store they get it on the 3rd.

I agree it's a typo since at the end of the article he says 'July can't come fast enough'.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not really a new thought I'm sure, but the way he phrased the "sharing creations" part further implied to me it's not going to be OGL. At this point I'm thinking it'll be some sort of Steam Workshop-like thing where you can share creations for use by them on a (hopefully more curated than Steam) website.

I think actual curation beyond eliminating unpleasant stuff is probably asking too much, depending on the volume of content created*, but hopefully some sort of system of rating/tagging stuff could be of use. D&D players/DMs aren't Steam users, so there is likely to be less juvenile silly business.

I do hope it is something along the lines you describe - people create stuff and share it - monsters, dungeons, NPCs, etc. - because that could be of totally insanely huge value to really everyone.

* = In 4E, I could often come up with a half-a-dozen new monsters in an hour or two, sometimes even really good ones! If it's that easy to come up with content in 5E, or even easier (as seems possible), we could be looking at some crazy quantities of stuff being uploaded.

 

[Dausuul]

That's my guess too. He calls it a "program," which sounds like the opposite of the OGL. OGL was a free-for-all. "Program" implies WotC will be in charge.

Agreed. I suspect we're looking at GSL Part 2: Still A Lot Easier To Make Content For Pathfinder. It's a pity, really.

One thing I still don't get is why everyone is so on fire to have Wizards curating and preventing glut. What's wrong with glut? I'm all for having a public rating system so good stuff can rise to the top, but if Wizards is actively curating, we'll only see stuff that fits their vision. A lot of garbage was put out under the OGL, but also a lot of real gems, many of which might never have seen the light of day if Wizards had had to sign off on them.

 

[Mistwell]

Agreed. I suspect we're looking at GSL Part 2: Still A Lot Easier To Make Content For Pathfinder. It's a pity, really.

One thing I still don't get is why everyone is so on fire to have Wizards curating and preventing glut. What's wrong with glut? I'm all for having a public rating system so good stuff can rise to the top, but if Wizards is actively curating, we'll only see stuff that fits their vision. A lot of garbage was put out under the OGL, but also a lot of real gems, many of which might never have seen the light of day if Wizards had had to sign off on them.

Glut, without a good review system, causes eventual market bubble-bursting and cynicism over the general quality of 3rd party publishers. 10 for 10 great products is better than 15 of 50 great products, because the people who buy the 35 terrible ones become mistrustful of all of them and some stop buying altogether. It's good for a short term, but harms the market overall in the long term.

The only good counter to this is a solid system of user ratings. This did not really exist for the 3e glut - it was pretty random and word of mouth only did so much if you had to search out product reviews. EW had a great review system - but you had to go look for the product, and you couldn't buy it through EW.

On the other hand, things like Google Marketplace do provide a pretty solid system for user ratings. If the suspicion we keep hearing bandied about turns out to be correct, and WOTC is creating such a marketplace online, then that may well solve for the glut issue while still allowing for a glut of products to be produced.

 

[Cybit]

Program is referring to the process in which it will go about, methinks. The OGL is a "program" from the position of Wizards, as is the GSL. So I would not read too heavily into "program" meaning GSL or OGL or Google Marketplace; I am pretty sure program is a reference to how it is internally referred to at this time.

 

[TerraDave]

Given that they only just finished the PHB, my guess is that they don't entirely know what their "program" will be.

Is it just fans, can anyone make and sell something for D&D, is it case by case...they may still be working on it.

 

[Dausuul]

Glut, without a good review system, causes eventual market bubble-bursting and cynicism over the general quality of 3rd party publishers. 10 for 10 great products is better than 15 of 50 great products, because the people who buy the 35 terrible ones become mistrustful of all of them and some stop buying altogether. It's good for a short term, but harms the market overall in the long term.

My understanding is the 3E third-party market crashed not because we hit some kind of OGL Minsky moment*, but because Wizards dropped 3.5 on the community with all the advance notice of a stealth bomber. Shelves full of third-party content became obsolete overnight. That was a traumatic experience for game store owners, who quite naturally pulled back in response, and for third-party publishers, who became a lot more cautious about publishing for 3E.

I agree with having a user rating system in place, as I said. And if WotC wants to have an Official Seal of Approval that they grant to their favorite stuff, that's cool. What I don't want is WotC trying to play gatekeeper for the entire third-party market. That would both stifle good products and be a strong disincentive to 3PPs to support 5E.

[size=-2]*"Minsky moment" is an economic term; it refers to the point when the forces driving up asset prices in a debt-fueled speculative bubble reach their limit and shift into reverse. The result is a plunge in asset values, a wave of bankruptcies, and economic crisis.[/size]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What I don't want is WotC trying to play gatekeeper for the entire third-party market. That would both stifle good products and be a strong disincentive to 3PPs to support 5E.

[]

Now that is funny becuse I WANT wotc to be a gate keeps to stop bad products and disincentive 3pp who do not care to edit...

If Mongoose wants to "trust each author" and just runn the books through a spell check then maybe mongoose shouldn't be allowed to put there stuff next to play tested and edited work

 

[Mistwell]

My understanding is the 3E third-party market crashed not because we hit some kind of OGL Minsky moment*, but because Wizards dropped 3.5 on the community with all the advance notice of a stealth bomber.

That was the final straw, but it was not the only straw. If the market was healthy before that, it would have recovered anyway - heck PDFs were already starting to become popular at that point and if the 3rd parties were really producing enough quality materials they would have all just shifted to PDF distribution if their retail stores were cutting them off due to the shock of 3.5. But for the most part that's not what happened - most went out of business, because there was an underlying problem existing at that point. Shelves were already starting to stack up with older inventory before that happened, because the market had become saturated, and quality was not consistent. Too many people had been burned.

I agree with having a user rating system in place, as I said. And if WotC wants to have an Official Seal of Approval that they grant to their favorite stuff, that's cool. What I don't want is WotC trying to play gatekeeper for the entire third-party market. That would both stifle good products and be a strong disincentive to 3PPs to support 5E.

I don't know. In part I agree. But then I look at the Apple example, and they've done fantastic using the closed gatekeeper method. Both can work and be successful.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Glut, without a good review system, causes eventual market bubble-bursting and cynicism over the general quality of 3rd party publishers. 10 for 10 great products is better than 15 of 50 great products, because the people who buy the 35 terrible ones become mistrustful of all of them and some stop buying altogether. It's good for a short term, but harms the market overall in the long term.

The only good counter to this is a solid system of user ratings. This did not really exist for the 3e glut - it was pretty random and word of mouth only did so much if you had to search out product reviews. EW had a great review system - but you had to go look for the product, and you couldn't buy it through EW.

On the other hand, things like Google Marketplace do provide a pretty solid system for user ratings. If the suspicion we keep hearing bandied about turns out to be correct, and WOTC is creating such a marketplace online, then that may well solve for the glut issue while still allowing for a glut of products to be produced.

Even Google play has some problems. I tried searching for a game yesterday and couldn't find it because of other games with similair names. Quite strange really, because I searched for the exact name of the app. Now, if Google, the world's #1 search provider has problems with glut, why wouldn't WotC have problems with it?

In this case, I would actually prefer Apple's* approach to the app store, where you aren't automatically approved when you submit an app. It might mean you get a bit fewer apps - or adventures in this case - but you have done your best to get higher quality.

A properly "chaperoned" marketplace for adventures is something I think would benefit WotC AND the publishers. I believe only a small portion of the D&D customers knows about the adventures done by Enworld for instance. It would be better for Enworld to take a smaller cut out of a much larger slice. WotC's cut might not even be higher than rpgnow's cut.

*I don't prefer Apple's prices though, so I am an Android user. My phone (Huawei) cost me about 40% of an Iphone and suits my needs better. (Bigger screen, more ram, although worse battery)