WotC Rumor: OGL will not be supported starting with One D&D

[Incenjucar]

I'm sure Paizo would appreciate the boost in sales from such a move, if nothing else.

 

[see]

If this rumor has any actual substance to it, I expect that such substance amounts to "There won't be a new SRD released simultaneously with the new edition in 2024".

Which would be the same thing as happened last time; 5th edition came out in 2014, while the 5e SRD was initially released in January 2016 (with a revision in May of that year). Only any delay would be a lot less important this time, because in 2015, there wasn't an already-extant almost-completely-compatible SRD.

 

[Morrus]

So I've watched the video, so I can quote verbatim. In bold are the things the guy in the video says, word-for-word.

He says "there will not be an open game license for the new edition". This is a meaningless statement -- editions don't have open game licenses. There's one OGL, released 20 years ago. It's irrevocable.

He follows up with "what this would mean is that companies that have basically existed off of making content for this game as third party publishers would essentially not be able to continue forth into the new edition". This can only be true if the new edition uses substantially different terminology from the current edition and is not compatible with it.

"This would affect companies like MCD, Kobold Press, Mage Hand Press, Monte Cook Games, even Paizo in some capacity... Wizards of the Coast is making us aware that they would be the only people able to legally make money off of anything published for this new system". I guess we at EN Publishing are safe then! Sorry, Monte!

"This is a rumour coming from a source that I would vouch for". Your source said "there will not be an open game license for the new edition"? Then your source doesn't understand what the OGL is. I wouldn't vouch for them if I were you. If they said something different, I suggest you quote what they actually said. But definitely don't vouch for a source that says "there will not be an open game license for the new edition". Because it's a meaningless statement. There's one OGL (well, OK two), it was released 20 years ago, it's irrevocable.

"This is a move that would devastate the whole third party scene." How? As a 22-year publisher of third party D&D books, through several edition changes, I'd love to hear how this will devastate me. I don't think it will.

So, folks, this guy's source, whoever it is, is talking nonsense. He doesn't know what the OGL is, how it works, or how publishers of OGL material operate.

 

[Burnside]

My knickers remain untwisted. Maybe this 'rumor' is a trial balloon to gauge the audience's reaction? Until there is an announcement with more details I can't get worked up about it. The OGL is the OGL. Not having an updated SRD might be annoying but as long as 1D&D is truly backward compatible, it is not an issue either. We have a rumor translated by a Youtuber. It could be something else entirely, but the terminology is more FUD-like than substantive.

TBH, based on the playtest packets (which, granted, are just tests) I would not call One D&D “truly backwards compatible.”

 

[Lanefan]

So I've watched the video, so I can quote verbatim. In bold are the things the guy in the video says, word-for-word.

He says "there will not be an open game license for the new edition". This is a meaningless statement -- editions don't have open game licenses. There's one OGL, released 20 years ago. It's irrevocable.

That "irrevocable" piece - in the wonderful wacky world that is the American legal system, is anything truly irrevocable any more?

'Cause if they think they've found a way to revoke or shut down or even severely limit the OGL, or are actively looking for such, that's a big headache.

 

[Morrus]

That "irrevocable" piece - in the wonderful wacky world that is the American legal system, is anything truly irrevocable any more?

'Cause if they think they've found a way to revoke or shut down or even severely limit the OGL, or are actively looking for such, that's a big headache.

I mean, they'd be going head to head at war with Paizo over it. And that's just the start.

 

[Incenjucar]

This just feels like a click-bait attempt to prey on the paranoia of folks who spend a lot of time expecting to find a trap on every treasure chest.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wait... aren't they still pretending this isn't a new edition?

 

[see]

That "irrevocable" piece - in the wonderful wacky world that is the American legal system, is anything truly irrevocable any more?

If there's some way to revoke the OGL:

1) Hasbro presumably would have tried it already, back with 4th edition vs. Pathfinder.

2) The theory would almost certainly also apply to the various perpetual open source software licenses that the OGL was based on. At which point large, high-end law firms hired by places like Google and IBM are filing amicus curiae briefs asking an appeals court to slap Hasbro down.

 

[tetrasodium]

This makes no sense from any standpoint. We know what happened when wotc got the bright idea to move from OGL to the more restrictive GSL & the result would be Levelup Pathfinder2e or something like the thing MCDM mentioned working on becoming the new king for a few years because d&d needs the 3rd party ecosystem the ogl fertilized to be king. The OGL is why you see things like the pathfinder & fate SRDs but not shadowrun SRD.