D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Michael Morris]

I think all the clamor about a 5e OGL causing another 3eOGL style glut of the market is so much FUD. Publishers, distributors, retailers and customers alike are all "once bitten, twice shy" - and gamers have long memories.

Long memories.

 

[Knightfall]

I think that a game license that would permit anyone to produce digital product, but require a negotiated license with WOTC for print product would probably be the best for all involved. It would certainly be easier on brick and mortar game stores who probably would be very wary of third party product after the D20 glut and crash around 2003.

That's a great idea.

 

[Alzrius]

That's a great idea.

I disagree. A negotiated license isn't something that anyone, WotC or third-party publisher, would want.

Strictly speaking, that creates a large amount of work for everyone involved, with no real benefit. Having to go through a negotiation process each and every time someone wants to produce a compatible printed product would rapidly create a huge queue for WotC to slog through. That would mean they'd need to devote time and resources to other peoples' products, while the third-party publishers would be stuck waiting for their products to meet WotC's approval.

Requiring negotiated licenses sort of defeats the point of having an open license in the first place. You want a license so that you don't have to independently negotiate to make a compatible product - that's something that any company can try to do already.

 

[Agamon]

But, it avoids the OGL glut and stuff like BoEF.

This isn't anything new, it's been done since the TSR days with Judge's Guild up to 4e with Gale Force 9. It may create more bureaucracy, but it gives them the creative control they want, and while it gives us less quantity, we get more quality (or at least, that's the idea).

 

[Alzrius]

But, it avoids the OGL glut and stuff like BoEF.

It only does this by creating a "glut" for WotC, rather than for the market. Having to devote resources to negotiating an unending series of licenses with an increasingly backlogged (and, as a result, upset) queue of third-party publishers isn't good for WotC, and it isn't good for the market. Demanding that much control over the process is going to result in WotC crippling itself to try and keep up.

Quite frankly, neither the (so-called) "glut" nor the BoEF was anything that WotC was concerned about in the first place - those were market problems that caused much more hand-wringing for gamers than they ever did for Wizards of the Coast. So why should they expend massive time and effort to worrying about them now?

This isn't anything new, it's been done since the TSR days with Judge's Guild up to 4e with Gale Force 9. It may create more bureaucracy, but it gives them the creative control they want, and while it gives us less quantity, we get more quality (or at least, that's the idea).

The idea doesn't work. The examples you cite were with specific companies, either for limited products (Gale Force 9 distributes these modules, but I don't believe they write them) or is with one company with a few products spread out over a few years (Judges Guild).

The "negotiated print licenses" idea means that WotC is now having to work out deals with every company that wants to make a compatible print product. That is, quite simply, more than they can reasonably handle. It means that they'll be a squeeze on any company that wants to make print materials, since they'll need to wait in line with all of the other companies doing the same thing until WotC can deal with them - and that won't be fast, since WotC has to devote most of its resources to its own products.

So what you'll have an incredibly slow process of some WotC exec reading a product, passing some notes along, some other execs having a discussion, having a meeting with the third-party publisher, and finally either approving it, or sending it back for revisions, and repeat. That's not just burdensome, it's incredibly burdensome. It means that the process will either become a rubber stamp, or a line so slow that it will be a de facto ban on compatible print products.

That's without even getting into the issue of where Print on Demand products will fall.

I get that gamers like the idea of some sort of "standards" or "quality control" mechanisms being implemented, but imposing those on an entire market for compatible materials is simply unrealistic, at least in terms of judging things on (a completely subjective) qualitative merit. The only way to do that is via a blanket set of terms and restrictions, ranging from loose (the OGL) to tight (the GSL), and we've seen which one worked better.

 

[Dausuul]

But, it avoids the OGL glut and stuff like BoEF.

To what end? Why is it important to avoid an OGL glut? Other than a general aesthetic preference for not having the market flooded with third-rate products, who is actually hurt by it? Sure, game stores have to pick and choose what to stock, but they have to do that anyway. I don't see that Wizards suffers from it. Gamers benefit from the competition. And out of the ocean of garbage, the occasional gem will emerge. They can always have something like the d20 System Trademark License for people who want to advertise their compatibility with D&D--presumably they would write it carefully enough this time around to avoid another Book of Erotic Fantasy incident.

You can't lawyer your way out of Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything is crud and always will be. If you want the other 10%, you just have to accept sifting through the 90% as a cost of doing business.

 

[Umbran]

Strictly speaking, that creates a large amount of work for everyone involved, with no real benefit.

How much work is involved depends on how much negotiation is really involved. For example, if WotC simply won't grant licenses to anyone who isn't already an established publisher or designer, it becomes *lots* easier right there.

 

[Alzrius]

How much work is involved depends on how much negotiation is really involved. For example, if WotC simply won't grant licenses to anyone who isn't already an established publisher or designer, it becomes *lots* easier right there.

Considering the sheer number of established RPG publishing companies out there (look through the list of publishers on DriveThruRPG; it's huge! Even if only a fraction of them wanted to publish 5E-compatible materials, it'd likely overwhelm WotC completely), I don't see that being a mitigating factor. Becoming an "established" designer or publisher is far easier than it used to be.

 

[Umbran]

Considering the sheer number of established RPG publishing companies out there (look through the list of publishers on DriveThruRPG; it's huge! Even if only a fraction of them wanted to publish 5E-compatible materials, it'd likely overwhelm WotC completely), I don't see that being a mitigating factor. Becoming an "established" designer or publisher is far easier than it used to be.

Well, WotC gets to set its standard for what they consider "established".

Remember, this isn't like bidding on a public contract, or anything. With negotiated licensing, they don't *have* to look at anything in particular. They don't need to go through an entire slush pile, considering every offer equally. When they feel like the pipeline could use some extra material, they can look over offers.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, WotC gets to set its standard for what they consider "established".

Remember, this isn't like bidding on a public contract, or anything. With negotiated licensing, they don't *have* to look at anything in particular. They don't need to go through an entire slush pile, considering every offer equally. When they feel like the pipeline could use some extra material, they can look over offers.

The problem is that that's even more restrictive than the GSL, at least in terms of print products. At least the GSL considers the license to have been agreed to once a company sends in its notice of registration, and they can start putting out products right away. Having to wait for WotC approval, especially if they're going to be as discriminating in what they agree to as you posit here, is going to kill the (print) market for compatibility even more quickly than the GSL did.

Likewise, at that level the entire point of an open license becomes moot. If it's going to descend to the level of individually-negotiated contracts, with no claim for universality of consideration or approval, then that's not really different from how things work normally: that company A proposes a mutual project to company B, some discussions are held, and a license for that specific project(s) might result. There's nothing inherently wrong with that system, but it gets away from the entire point of an open license - that it's open in the first place.

Moreover, the ripple effects of this will not be limited to print products; the larger publishers (who are the major print product makers) won't like their products being confined to the limbo of a slush pile, since that can wreak havoc with scheduling their releases (if they get to release them at all). The result won't be them splitting their work between D&D for PDF only and other RPGs for print materials - most companies seem to pick one RPG and stick to it - it'll be them abandoning D&D as a viable system for publishing compatible materials.