D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[GMforPowergamers]

Seems to me that by restricting the licenses, WotC can potentially obtain a number of benefits:

Screen out the small fry and less than serious proposals.

Maintain a level of quality in the product family.

Provide incentives to potential licensees by helping to prop up their margins (by limiting competition).

Give them more room for strategic partnerships (partner A covers segment a, partner B covers segment b, &etc).

yes all of that sounds good to me.

Imagine X company being allowd to make a new set of classes, and them showing up in a character builder...

In my mind, the biggest advantage of the OGL isn't about third party publishers creating supporting content (thought that is nice), but for fans to create and distribute content as needed with the confidence that they aren't doing anything illegal. Under the OGL, I could create an slightly modified version of the Barbarian and post it online, or build a few custom spells, or even create a spellbook webapp using official content. Not for profit, but because I think it would benefit me and the community.

OGL was very nice for that, but a fan site or fan info page could work just as well...

Really. So, let us be creative...

Imagine... WotCstarter!

You get to make a pitch for a product. Fans/customers/subscribers vote on pitches. Winner gets a license to make the described product. Not "open" by any stretch of the imagination, but it would mean things *we* want get made. Maybe it is a setting. Maybe it is an adventure. Maybe it is an adventure path. Maybe it is software....

ok, I know you are joking... but damn I just got scary cold chills reading that...

 

[Alzrius]

You seem to be confusing the licensing model with the license itself. We haven't talked about the terms of the license - we've only discussed how one might become licensed. So let's not make claims about how restrictive it is once you have it.

I'm not confusing them, I'm pointing out that the idea of having to negotiate a license for each and every printed product that any company wants to produce is a model that obviates the license almost entirely. If that's the model used, then it doesn't really matter what the license itself is; you've already created a model that - without getting into the terms of the actual license - causes more restriction than the previous licenses themselves ever have.

If that's the case, the license itself barely matters, since comparatively few companies will ever get that far, compared to the previous models.

Open is a means, not an end. If there is nothing inherently wrong with the system, then it should be on the table to be considered.

Open is the means that leads to all ends. Leaving aside the subjective nature of "inherently wrong," why create more roadblocks to letting third-parties make whatever they want, all in the name of some ill-defined "community standards" or avoiding a "glut" (which had virtually nothing to do with the quality of the products anyway)?

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] said it best - trying to lawyer away Sturgeon's Law is a fool's errand; it creates drawbacks for benefits that are near-totally illusory.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Open is the means that leads to all ends. Leaving aside the subjective nature of "inherently wrong," why create more roadblocks to letting third-parties make whatever they want, all in the name of some ill-defined "community standards" or avoiding a "glut" (which had virtually nothing to do with the quality of the products anyway)?

as the largest anti ogl voice on the boards I have a few thoughts...

first it doesn't have to be a case by case, you could have a LLA (Limited Licence Agreement) that basicly says you have to submit a basic business plan and out line of atleast x words with a $50 processing fee payable to WotC and in 4-6 weeks you will either get a refund, or a LLA for 1 year with you being able to renew it for $100 or 5% of your recorded profit witch ever is higher as long as the edition is in print+2 years....

second wotc can then make a more open fan site agreement and picj and choose to out source some adventures, and campaign settings...



the benfit it gives wotc control of there own IP, for better or worse the Book of Erotic Fantasy, Pathfinder, and the pocket players guide can not be made in this environment. (just for the record I tried all three and liked 1 of those)

the benfit to us is a larger then 0 3rd party presense without the huge amount of things to wade through...

 

[Henry]

As one of the more vocal pro-OGL voices out there, i have a few points to make also:

1. Why have some people in the past used the example of the Book of Erotic Fantasy as if it were some kind of illegal back-alley drug paraphenalia that ruined people's lives, and people still treat it with that pall hanging over it like it was the truth? I read it, it was kinda tacky and pointless to me, and I had no use for it, but it really did not harm Person One in its existence. If anything, we gamers had a freak-out about it more than the general public, who scarcely even knew of its presence. It wasn't F.A.T.A.L. for goodness' sake.

2. What some call d20 glut I call the fad market doing what it does by its very nature. Ask Marvel and DC fans what happened when comic publishers started believing that comics were paper gold back in the late 90's, and the limited edition and gold foil and fly by night collectible card crap that vendors as well as fans wound up trying to give away by the boxload. Fads happen, market shakes out, the only difference is that this one had "d20" stamped all over it. It was facilitated by the OGL, but it was really the d20 STL that was responsible for the worst of it - just like vendors saw "foil comic covers" and "MTG" and saw dollar signs, gaming vendors saw "d20" logos and assumed it was proverbial golden goose.

3. An open license to communicate good ideas and foster innovation is a good thing. Open licenses have fostered many successes in other fields, particularly the software field and in scientific fields, and I've seen it foster success in gaming as well. I've seen Mutants and Masterminds come out of it (one of the best supers games out there)' Pathfinder, an awesome alternate magic system from Green Ronin called True Sorcery, OSRIC, Microlite20, and more recently, 13th Age. Heck, if you read Shane Hensley's story of the beginnings of Savage Worlds, it was spawned as a "counter-culture" to the d20 movement facilitated by the OGL. I'll take all those crappy d20 supplements i had to trade or give away as payment for all of those games listed.

4. I've said it before and i'll say it again - many people talk about the OGL as if its consequences for WotC were horrible accidents - but the fact is it did exactly what its designers (who were in charge at WotC at the time) had intended - and had WotC stuck to that plan, Paizo would not exist and have no reason to exist. Lisa Stevens has said before in seminars, when credited with Paizo's great success, that "it was Ryan's (Dancy's) business model, she and Vic (Wertz) just followed through"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As one of the more vocal pro-OGL voices out there, i have a few points to make also:

1. Why have some people in the past used the example of the Book of Erotic Fantasy as if it were some kind of illegal back-alley drug paraphenalia that ruined people's lives, and people still treat it with that pall hanging over it like it was the truth? I read it, it was kinda tacky and pointless to me, and I had no use for it, but it really did not harm Person One in its existence. If anything, we gamers had a freak-out about it more than the general public, who scarcely even knew of its presence. It wasn't F.A.T.A.L. for goodness' sake.

I don't know myself, I thought it could have done with another pass or two from an editor, but I loved it...

2. What some call d20 glut I call the fad market doing what it does by its very nature. Ask Marvel and DC fans what happened when comic publishers started believing that comics were paper gold back in the late 90's, and the limited edition and gold foil and fly by night collectible card crap that vendors as well as fans wound up trying to give away by the boxload. Fads happen, market shakes out, the only difference is that this one had "d20" stamped all over it. It was facilitated by the OGL, but it was really the d20 STL that was responsible for the worst of it - just like vendors saw "foil comic covers" and "MTG" and saw dollar signs, gaming vendors saw "d20" logos and assumed it was proverbial golden goose.

yes, but that doesn't mean I want to go back to the 90's...

3. An open license to communicate good ideas and foster innovation is a good thing. Open licenses have fostered many successes in other fields, particularly the software field and in scientific fields, and I've seen it foster success in gaming as well. I've seen Mutants and Masterminds come out of it (one of the best supers games out there)' Pathfinder, an awesome alternate magic system from Green Ronin called True Sorcery, OSRIC, Microlite20, and more recently, 13th Age. Heck, if you read Shane Hensley's story of the beginnings of Savage Worlds, it was spawned as a "counter-culture" to the d20 movement facilitated by the OGL. I'll take all those crappy d20 supplements i had to trade or give away as payment for all of those games listed.

hey, I 100% agree with the Mutants and Masterminds, and I know it came out because of the d20, but it got better when they distanced themselves from the d20 system (as much as it can)

4. I've said it before and i'll say it again - many people talk about the OGL as if its consequences for WotC were horrible accidents - but the fact is it did exactly what its designers (who were in charge at WotC at the time) had intended - and had WotC stuck to that plan, Paizo would not exist and have no reason to exist. Lisa Stevens has said before in seminars, when credited with Paizo's great success, that "it was Ryan's (Dancy's) business model, she and Vic (Wertz) just followed through"

yes, it works the way ryan thought it would... and hurt the entire hobby and WotC properties in the process... you can't tell me you believe pathfinder is anything but an unforeseen consequence... The OGL was ment to have a big partnership... instead it made a rival.

 

[Henry]

I don't know myself, I thought it could have done with another pass or two from an editor, but I loved it...

And that's what was great about it - I couldn't stand it, but you loved it, but it sure as heck didn't hurt the whole hobby just because it existed.

yes, but that doesn't mean I want to go back to the 90's...

My point is, you and I have no choice. When a fad emerges, it's going to do what the d20 STL did, expand and implode like an overinflated balloon. I still contend it wasn't solely because of opening the ruleset for others to tinker with.

hey, I 100% agree with the Mutants and Masterminds, and I know it came out because of the d20, but it got better when they distanced themselves from the d20 system (as much as it can)

Actually, I like the 2nd edition better than the third, but either way, it could and would not have existed without opening those rules innovations for Steve Kenson to not have to reinvent the wheel. By contrast, I can't say I like icons as much, because it does reinvent the wheel, and doesn't really offer me something new.

yes, it works the way ryan thought it would... and hurt the entire hobby and WotC properties in the process... you can't tell me you believe pathfinder is anything but an unforeseen consequence... The OGL was ment to have a big partnership... instead it made a rival.

Every time this question comes up, I swear I will keep the link in a safe place, and every time I can't find it when I need it - I think I just need to find it and this time print a copy to stick on my refrigerator door.
A FAQ from circa 2000-2001 came up with the question "what happens if wotc decides to make huge changes to the game and doesn't go along with the OGL?" And his answer was something to the effect of "I really doubt they would, but if the community went one way and wotc went another, someone could theoretically fork off the rules and the community itself would decide which way to go." Turn to 6 years later, and EXACTLY that happened. Dancey has said numerous times that one of the core purposes was to keep the death or capricious intent of a company from ending D&D, and being able to fork game rules without threat of lawsuit is the guaranteed way to make that happen. If I can find the reference yet again, I'll post it here, but the further away from 2001 it gets, it gets harder to find.

 

[jsaving]

yes, it works the way ryan thought it would... and hurt the entire hobby and WotC properties in the process... you can't tell me you believe pathfinder is anything but an unforeseen consequence... The OGL was ment to have a big partnership... instead it made a rival.

I don't agree with this at all.

Ryan Dancey understood that core rulebooks drive WotC's profits and that a vibrant third-party adventure marketplace would actually increase core-book sales, raising profits for the entire industry including WotC. He saw the OGL as the means to accomplish this end and it worked even better than he thought it would.

The OGL also reassured on-the-fence purchasers that third-party support for their rulebooks would remain available even if WotC tried to muscle them into adopting a new edition that didn't meet with their approval. This worked as well and drove core-book sales still higher.

When WotC eventually did try to muscle them into adopting a new edition that didn't meet with their approval, the OGL's "insurance" against this worked like a charm, with third parties emerging to serve an edition WotC had elected to abandon. But blaming the OGL for this is like blaming your car insurance for reimbursing you after you're hit, when the fault instead lies clearly with the other driver for doing what he knew in advance would trigger the insurance.

Of course Pathfinder wasn't an unintended consequence of the OGL -- it is exactly what Ryan Dancey intended to happen if WotC did what it did. WotC just drastically overestimated their ability to muscle people, and the fact that they're now paying the piper for this is a testament to the OGL's success rather than proof of its failure.

None of this is meant to imply that 4e is a "bad" system. I use 4e in one of my three campaigns and have argued many times on these boards that its innovations, from backgrounds to at-wills, would make sound additions to just about any gaming table. I'd even agree with those who say 4e didn't get a completely fair shake in some quarters from people who were upset by the degree to which it deliberately severed itself from pre-4e continuity and mechanics. But I don't think it's inconsistent on my part to like 4e for what it is while simultaneously sympathizing with this feeling that too much of the past was jettisoned for too little benefit.

 

[Dausuul]

Dancey has said numerous times that one of the core purposes was to keep the death or capricious intent of a company from ending D&D, and being able to fork game rules without threat of lawsuit is the guaranteed way to make that happen. If I can find the reference yet again, I'll post it here, but the further away from 2001 it gets, it gets harder to find.

Exactly. In TSR's careen toward bankruptcy, it pledged a lot of its intellectual property as security for loans. D&D itself was mortgaged to the hilt, and foreclosure was imminent. Who would have ended up with what pieces after liquidation, God only knows. Wizards of the Coast was able to save D&D from that fate, but the near-death experience was fresh in everybody's minds when the OGL was being written, and one goal was to ensure it could never happen again. No matter what boneheaded decisions the corporate owners of the D&D brand might make, the game itself would survive, and companies like Paizo could always step in to tend the flame.

Was this the link you were looking for?

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ieov&page=4?Opinions-Mike-Mearls-Has-Open-Gaming-Been-a#156

And another interesting one I hadn't come across before:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=741115&postcount=90

 

[Morrus]

Every time this question comes up, I swear I will keep the link in a safe place, and every time I can't find it when I need it - I think I just need to find it and this time print a copy to stick on my refrigerator door.
A FAQ from circa 2000-2001 came up with the question "what happens if wotc decides to make huge changes to the game and doesn't go along with the OGL?" And his answer was something to the effect of "I really doubt they would, but if the community went one way and wotc went another, someone could theoretically fork off the rules and the community itself would decide which way to go." Turn to 6 years later, and EXACTLY that happened. Dancey has said numerous times that one of the core purposes was to keep the death or capricious intent of a company from ending D&D, and being able to fork game rules without threat of lawsuit is the guaranteed way to make that happen. If I can find the reference yet again, I'll post it here, but the further away from 2001 it gets, it gets harder to find.

You don't have to look far - it's closer than you think! That's why I've archived all these things for the last 14 years! I'm sure you'll find it in one of the interviews here (also includes Eric Noah's interviews, of course) or in this history of TSR/WotC.

I suspect this is what you're looking for.

"I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners. I know just how close that came to happening. In 1997, TSR had pledged most of the copyright interests in D&D as collateral for loans it could not repay, and had Wizards of the Coast not rescued it I'm certain that it would have all gone into a lenghty bankruptcy struggle with a very real chance that D&D couldn't be published until the suits, appeals, countersuits, etc. had all been settled (i.e. maybe never). The OGL enabled that as a positive side effect."

But also possibly this?

 

[Remathilis]

There won't be another glut.

Many of the Glut-actors are gone. Established actors with track records now stand. BnM stores will not buy from unknown companies producing photocopy modules and untested hardbacks. They will stock from WotC, FFG, Paizo, Frog God, Goodman, and other well established companies.

Smaller actors will be regulated to pdfs on the internet until they establish a rep. Online distribution is far better than it was in 2001, one need only look at how Paizo handles the OGL to see it.

There era of glut is over. Thst ship has sailed. Even a completely open 5e would not recreate 2000 again. Once bitten...