D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Henry]

Darksun was great (not quite stone age) I ran both scifi and modern (based on Dresden files) games with 4e with ease..

i would have been interested in such, and would have loved to have both seen it and see if someone else was interested in tailoring those concepts and tweaking them for level of deadliness, or tweaking what different skills did, but, according to the GSL, You could not have shared those with me if any classes or powers were duplicated, or changed in meaning, or tweaked with respect to how values were calculated, because it would have necessitated a change in meaning; plus, when the GSL was discontinued or amended, whoever worked on said tweaks would be prohibited from distributing it thereafter. Were I to want such, I would need to work from scratch and create it myself, for my personal use, along with every other person who wanted something similar, all of which would suck equally because of distributed level of effort.

In the software industry, without the concept of the copyleft, the internet would not have had the explosive growth that exists today - there are many parallels that can be drawn from this, I contend - no widespread DNS network, no personal blogs, no Facebook, no "modern" web servers as we know them, and a host of other benefits that wouldn't exist.

As I noted, the gaming landscape without an OGL would be missing a half dozen to a dozen of the most popular RPGs at current. Arguably, there would be no 5e and its innovations without an OGL spurring a need to make a product more inclusive to its entire customer base. Is a company's inability to compete without attempting to force its customers into cyclical purchase worth preserving in the face of the innovation and competitive force gained by challenging themselves to do better by releasing those ideas to be expounded upon by not only others but themselves?

Anyway, I really need to stop now, because going any further isn't really changing anyone's mind anyway. Either they will release more open content, or they won't.

 

[Nellisir]

LOL well go to a 2e oriented message board these days and ask them what they think.

...well, duh, yeah. If they loved 3e they probably wouldn't be hanging out at a 2e board, and they've had 14 years to refine their polemics.

 

[Mistwell]

...well, duh, yeah. If they loved 3e they probably wouldn't be hanging out at a 2e board, and they've had 14 years to refine their polemics.

Now imagine if 2e had been continuously published still for the past 14 years (by a third party), with a full regular series of expansion books, adventures, settings, DM screens, monster manuals, etc.. And tell me that would not have gotten a lot more people to continue playing 2e rather than consider playing 3e once most 2e support dried up.

 

[Perram]

Actually that is the one claim he had predicted that he hasn't continued to claim since then. The original plan was that all OGL games would NEED a PHB to play them. That didn't happen. Indeed, they didn't actually expect people to replicate the same rules they had published in addition to making their own games based on them. But that is exactly what happened - you didn't need a PHB to play all those other games, because they were simply replicating all the rules they needed to replicate in their books. You didn't need a PHB to play Spycraft or M&M or Call of Cthulu or Delta Green. The original intent was for everyone to buy the PHB to play any other game based on the open license, and it ended up there were definitely NOT selling PHBs to all those other game players. And you sure as heck never needed a DMG or MM to play those other games.

And it wasn't just non-fantasy games of course...Pathfinder proves that one, and other companies were starting to do it before them (and one company even had the call to put out a miniature PHB). It was inevitably leading to nobody ever needing a WOTC product to play any d20 game.

To address this oversight they first tried to put out new OGL licenses (different numbers). Most people simply ignored the new ones though - why use a more restrictive one when the older one remains indefinitely in effect and is less restrictive.

So the next step was a shift in the edition. This was one primary force behind 3.5e. Monte Cook has talked about it, how the OGL wasn't functioning quite as intended in that respect (though he was not pleased with the shift).

And you don't hear Dancey claiming it anymore either, and in the distant past when he did he refused to put any numbers on it, unlike everything else he was saying. That aspect of the OGL did not work out. They did not sell more copies of the PHB, and certainly not the DMG or MM, because of companies putting out OGL games which had nothing to do with D&D, and then eventually games which were like D&D but which had their own type of PHB.

Well, you have to be a little fair here, they were putting a lot money on the 'd20 System' branding, which forbid character creation rules, and required the PHB. The OGL never needed it. And it wasn't until they revoked the d20 license (IT could be revoked, the OGL could not) that the big switch to OGL only publishing hit. Yeah M&M and a few other non-fantasy games were OGL since they deviated from the core d20 so much as to NEED character creation rules.

 

[Nellisir]

Now imagine if 2e had been continuously published still for the past 14 years (by a third party), with a full regular series of expansion books, adventures, settings, DM screens, monster manuals, etc.. And tell me that would not have gotten a lot more people to continue playing 2e rather than consider playing 3e once most 2e support dried up.

Imagine if all that had happened, and the third party was Mongoose Press. Or, whatstheirface, Avalanche Press.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Whether the OGL makes the reaction to a new edition worse or better is dependent on the nature and purpose of the new edition.

It the goal of the new edition is simply to iterate and improve upon the design, as was the case with D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, then the OGL helps by easing the transition. Old material gets adapted to the new rules by the community, easing the burden on those who upgrade. New material similar gets adapted to the old rules, meaning that those who don't switch are still potential customers.

On the other hand, if the goal of the new edition is to get people to abandon the old edition entirely and repurchase similar content for the new edition, the OGL will get in the way, as others have described. It'll even get in the way if the changes are more altruistic, but still drastic.

If these things are true, than the OGL favors the iterative approach to editions. But, my experience is that the iterative approach works better in the vast majority of cases, OGL or not.

 

[darjr]

Now imagine if 2e had been continuously published still for the past 14 years (by a third party), with a full regular series of expansion books, adventures, settings, DM screens, monster manuals, etc.. And tell me that would not have gotten a lot more people to continue playing 2e rather than consider playing 3e once most 2e support dried up.

a lot of people were done with 2e. even if wotc supported it I think fewer people would have played it. I think people in large part were chomping at the bit for a new version. especially the way it was done and with the ogl

 

[Mistwell]

Whether the OGL makes the reaction to a new edition worse or better is dependent on the nature and purpose of the new edition.

For a lot of people, it's not. They have ongoing games they simply do not want to change to adapt to a new system. As long as their current system is well supported, they will continue with that system.

It the goal of the new edition is simply to iterate and improve upon the design, as was the case with D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder, then the OGL helps by easing the transition.

There are no easy transitions anymore with the OGL.

3.5e support ended. Many people were not naturally going to shift to Pathfinder on their own simply because it offered slight improvements to the rules. It was the cessation of support for 3.5, combined with increased support for Pathfnder, that did it. Paizo is the first to admit they created the game BECAUSE 3.5 was ending and they saw the opening in the marketplace. And now Paizo is stuck with Pathfinder - they can never leave it really, because if they ever do someone will simply fill that gap and support Pathfinder.

The OGL makes it harder to shift to ANY new edition, regardless of content, because ongoing support for a prior edition is a disincentive to even care what the new edition is about. People want to play a supported system - and the OGL means whatever existing system they are playing, is supported. Many will always naturally want to continue with whatever system their currently playing, if it is supported.

 

[Mistwell]

a lot of people were done with 2e. even if wotc supported it I think fewer people would have played it. I think people in large part were chomping at the bit for a new version. especially the way it was done and with the ogl

Sure a lot were done with it. And also, a lot were not done. Which is what I mean about making existing fractures in the community wider. The people who are on the fence, and the ones who want to continue with the old edition, are both encouraged to choose the old edition if it continues to receive good support (from anyone).

The OGL means there will always be support - so it will always be harder to get people to join a new edition regardless of the details of that new edition. And it makes edition warring worse because it's easier to fight about the negatives of a new system WHILE arguing for the positive of the support for the old system; than it is to argue simply for the negatives of the new system vs. the stagnant old system.

 

[Perram]

For a lot of people, it's not. They have ongoing games they simply do not want to change to adapt to a new system. As long as their current system is well supported, they will continue with that system.



There are no easy transitions anymore with the OGL.

3.5e support ended. Many people were not naturally going to shift to Pathfinder on their own simply because it offered slight improvements to the rules. It was the cessation of support for 3.5, combined with increased support for Pathfnder, that did it. Paizo is the first to admit they created the game BECAUSE 3.5 was ending and they saw the opening in the marketplace. And now Paizo is stuck with Pathfinder - they can never leave it really, because if they ever do someone will simply fill that gap and support Pathfinder.

The OGL makes it harder to shift to ANY new edition, regardless of content, because ongoing support for a prior edition is a disincentive to even care what the new edition is about. People want to play a supported system - and the OGL means whatever existing system they are playing, is supported. Many will always naturally want to continue with whatever system their currently playing, if it is supported.

Ok, going to step in here. Paizo created Pathfinder as a move of last resort. They were going to move their Pathfinder Adventure Path books from 3.5 to 4e... except WotC kept pushing back the license, and pushing it back, and they were forced to make a decision on what to do. Pathfinder the system was a Hail Mary Pass, not a move to slip into a market place. To them the AP is the flagship product, and they needed a system to support it. They had absolutely no idea it would explode like it has. That was never the plan. Though I'm more than sure they aren't complaining that it worked out so well.

Pathfinder was created because they needed a rule system in print for their adventure line. If the GSL had come out sooner, and if it wasn't quite the strict thing it was when it came out (including the poison pill section that prevented use of the OGL if you accepted the GSL), then Paizo would have published their material as 4e support material, and Pathfinder the game never would have happened. (Though of course, some other company may have stepped up to the plate... but a lot of what makes Pathfinder works is the high quality of the material and the talent they have working on it. Not a lot of companies can boast the same.)

I've spoken with many of the Paizo employees about this several times, and we have a recording up on our site that explains a lot of this here: http://35privatesanctuary.com/index...ur&catid=35:the-tome-know-direction&Itemid=34

EDIT: This may be the version I'm thinking of, instead... http://35privatesanctuary.com/index...11&catid=35:the-tome-know-direction&Itemid=34

That's Lisa Stevens talking about how WotC was formed, Paizo was formed, and how Pathfinder came to be.