Mike Mearls On the OGL

[Wulf Ratbane]

My personal thought at the time was that if systems came into play that were demonstrably better than what WoTC produced that they would then use them. As Mearls rightly points out, thats a very tough call when you're dealing with something that has so much subjectivity involved.

That's exactly my point.

Wizards and Wizards alone is in a position to make those very tough calls.

In fact they did make that call with 4e, on a great many things (alignment, hit points, healing surges, spells per day, fundamental math, on and on).

Not everybody agrees with those changes, obviously, but there's no denying that WotC alone can force those kinds of changes.

 

[JDJblatherings]

there was an anime SRD, a mecha SRD and more built off of the d20- SRD that were released as SRD.

 

[Hussar]

And I believe you were slapped on this previously. Is it "Thank you sir, may I have another!" time?

3rd party publishers can't "add" to the SRD.

3rd party publishers can release portions of their work as OGC.

With respect to the aforementioned slapping, it was pointed out to you the vast swathes of 3rd party OGC that was 100% Open.

Start with True20.

And stop asking the same ill-informed question "time and time again."

What prevents a 3rd party SRD?

Oh right, 3rd party publishers.

Yup, 100% open, and when someone comes along and tries to make that material available, they get told in no uncertain terms that they shouldn't. The aforementioned freakage when someone had the temerity to suggest such an undertaking, for example.

But, yes, in the interests of being 100% pedantically correct, 3rd party publishers cannot add to the SRD.

 

[Nadaka]

That's exactly my point.

Wizards and Wizards alone is in a position to make those very tough calls.

In fact they did make that call with 4e, on a great many things (alignment, hit points, healing surges, spells per day, fundamental math, on and on).

Not everybody agrees with those changes, obviously, but there's no denying that WotC alone can force those kinds of changes.

One of the things that bothers me is that a lot of the changes made for 4e were long discussed and had very similar mechanics released under the OGL. They have taken our "open feedback" and closed it off.

 

[chriton227]

But, my entire point is that the OGL wasn't a true movement simply because it was tied so specifically to Wizards of the Coast and Dungeons and Dragons and never really expanded beyond that. I'm not saying its a failing, exactly, of the license, and I'm certainly not saying the license was a failure. I'm simply pointing out its limitations as an Open Source movement.

It sounds like what is really required for Open Gaming to become a movement like Open Source would be for an independant third party to establish a new license designed for broad use and not tied to any particular product or company. This could fall under an organization like GAMA, or it could be an entirely new organization founded to promote open gaming made up of representatives from a variety of companies and backgrounds.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

That blog post was actually a great deal more insightful than I thought it would be. I'm glad I read it, and thanks for the link.

One phrase I did want to extract from it was:

Tabletop RPGs continue to survive... precisely because of their DIY nature.

This is only part of the reason they survive. (Tabletop RPGs survive partly because of their DIY nature and partly because they're social--they have a level of personal interaction no computer game will match in the foreseeable future short of physically taking your laptop to a friend's house and playing a linkup in his front room.)

But from a licensing point of view it's critical. The OGL is irrevocable, thank goodness (and thank Ryan Dancey), so DIY tabletop RPGs will continue to be published and played for a long time to come.

I also suspect there's a lot Mike Mearls thinks but can't say.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

What prevents a 3rd party SRD?

Oh right, 3rd party publishers.

Yup, 100% open, and when someone comes along and tries to make that material available, they get told in no uncertain terms that they shouldn't. The aforementioned freakage when someone had the temerity to suggest such an undertaking, for example.

But, yes, in the interests of being 100% pedantically correct, 3rd party publishers cannot add to the SRD.

I think I've managed to create quite a successful 3rd party SRD, actually. I don't feel "prevented".

 

[JDJblatherings]

What prevents a 3rd party SRD?

Oh right, 3rd party publishers. .

Google SRD you'll find plenty of publishers that embrced the option. Not even all of them use d20.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

One of the things that bothers me is that a lot of the changes made for 4e were long discussed and had very similar mechanics released under the OGL. They have taken our "open feedback" and closed it off.

No mechanics and certainly nothing released under the OGL can be "closed off" by WotC.

 

[The Little Raven]

Did mearls really think people would slave away improving the D&D rules when they are owned by WotC?!

Ryan Dancey did, as that was one of his reasons for supporting open gaming: having the community improve the game they love iteratively.