D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Henry]

We need to think outside the box with 5e. The RPG isn't the central driving force behind the bran anymore.

Too much bran is a driving force all its own.

I'd be fine with seeing a 15-year OGL type license, also. The majority of sales of a product are done with by the first three to six months, from what I've heard, with 99% of them done after 5 years (though I imagine Russ is still selling the occasional singleton of Tournaments, Fairs, and Taverns )

The #1 thing I want out of an OGL is enough material for a consistent stat block format, and enough to allow easier creation of new character archetype options with having to tiptoe around IP like 3rd party publishers are a bunch of sneak-thieves or something. That would be enough for tons of publishers to jump on new adventure product lines, offer customized characters for different genres of campaigns, and so forth.

 

[Nellisir]

If it were me drafting it, I would include a 10-15 year expiration date on an OGL. That's long enough for serious companies to produce plenty of material but not make it the basis of a total challenge to WOTC on their own game. And, it would cull the worst whiners of the industry who think any restriction at all is too much of a restriction, who I suspect are the parties most likely to seek out corner cases and abuses of the OGL.

I forget what I've written before, but I'd be OK with some limit on the generation of new OGC, but not the distribution of existing OGC. That gives me 15 years to write and as many years as I want to keep selling. If I write something awesome in year 14, I don't want to pull it in a year.

 

[Nellisir]

You read into his quote much more generously than I did.
I read it as a simple, "nothing to say, the idea is still gestating;" not as an actual statement of ongoing labor.
But your interpretation of the tea leaves might be the better one.

The idea is already out there. They've "announced" the idea. (There is a thing. We are working on it.) I'd read it as an indication that there's something concrete, but it's not done. Could be revisions, could be approvals, could be support (ie SRD or website) development, could just be on a shelf until jury duty is done. It's not hatched, but it's there.

 

[Henry]

I forget what I've written before, but I'd be OK with some limit on the generation of new OGC, but not the distribution of existing OGC. That gives me 15 years to write and as many years as I want to keep selling. If I write something awesome in year 14, I don't want to pull it in a year.

Then you'd quit producing under that license in year 13, knowing it going in. If the experiment is a success for WotC, I'd think they'd release a new license by then anyway. What you're doing in year thirteen is no different than year -1, anyway.

 

[darjr]

I don't think sasquatch did the editing or layout or art. Goodmangames I bet could do the writing required of one of these. Man I would dig it.

 

[Wicht]

The idea is already out there. They've "announced" the idea. (There is a thing. We are working on it.) I'd read it as an indication that there's something concrete, but it's not done. Could be revisions, could be approvals, could be support (ie SRD or website) development, could just be on a shelf until jury duty is done. It's not hatched, but it's there.

The exact shape of an idea is often different than the passing fancy of an idea. The germ of an idea (we should have an OGL for 5e), is different from certitude as to the final shape that idea might grow into (This license should have a five year life-span, and require trained gerbils). One might presume that internally there is a consistent agreement across departments as to what is desired, but it is also possible that there are competing factions and until the base premise is resolved, no actual labor is being done to implement one side or the other's version.

Still and all, that is only a possible interpretation, and it is quite possibly the wrong interpretation. We may never know.

 

[Mistwell]

Then you'd quit producing under that license in year 13, knowing it going in. If the experiment is a success for WotC, I'd think they'd release a new license by then anyway. What you're doing in year thirteen is no different than year -1, anyway.

Could do a 10 year OGL, with an additional 5 years to publish existing stuff.

 

[Shasarak]

How would you expect them to telegraph it? Perhaps by refusing to talk about it anymore?

I chuckle over the image of Mike complaining about why he keeps on getting questioned about the OGL

 

[dmccoy1693]

If it were me drafting it, I would include a 10-15 year expiration date on an OGL.

Here's the real question: what would I gain and what would I lose? The whole point of a license such as this is to keep people in the area you want them to be in. The trade off for doing so would be to give some benefit that is otherwise unavailable.

Here's what I mean: 3.x OGL & SRD gave away alot, I could use the exact text from almost the whole PHB with few restrictions on what I could do. I could essentially plagiarize large sections of those books with no repercussions. The benefit to Wizards was that they had far less legal issues with unofficial created content. There were a few incidents, but by in large no one touched anything they were not allowed to. That access was balanced with the d20 logo. Those that were in the know knew that the d20 logo meant that it was D&D compatible. However, I knew GMs that ran the game for years never even heard of the d20 compatible products. You had to educate people.

Compare that to Pathfinder's license. Same plagiarism levels of openness with no repercussions. The logo says "Pathfinder Compatible Product" right on it, so that is something I gained. However, it came at the cost of writing for a game that was back in 2009 a smaller game.

The 4e GSL allowed "Dungeons and Dragons" right on your ... back cover. You couldn't have it on the front cover. You had to turn the book over to the back to see that it was for use with Dungeons and Dragons. That did not help things. Plus the publisher was not allowed to change the flavor of anything Wizards established, net giving up. No more plagiarism levels of openness. You couldn't just use the stats of a red dragon all you wanted. Net give up. There were a number of other restrictions as well. All because they felt that making material for D&D, which you did not have a logo on the front cover, was suppose to make sales. It turns out that all the major publishers that signed the license (Mongoose and Goodman) both abandoned it due to lack of sales.

So what would a 5e license offer me that I currently don't have? Can I essentially plagiarize the basic rule? That would be a net positive and a net negative. I could use spells like Witchbolt, but I'd have to use 3.x/Pathfinder OGL or public domain to do anything with the druid and monk. Can I mix and match existing OGL material in with this? That would be helpful if it were all on the same license. That would mean no dragonborn warlocks, but I can live with that. Do I get to put a logo on my front cover that says "Dungeons and Dragons Compatible"? That would get me to sign on. If it were another d20 logo, no.

 

[Nellisir]

When I start seriously contemplating replies about the geometric shapes and permutations of potentially unannounced quasi-concepts, and the duration of such ideas were they to be executed in some such fashion, then I think maybe we're all a bit starved for something actual to talk about. This is getting into some serious navel-gazing, and I'm not excluding myself. :/

Edit: I do have a beautiful navel....