D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[delericho]

I'd bet that the Basic Rules will be gradually added to.

I'm sure some stuff will be added, but I actually don't expect much. One of the advantages of Basic is, well, that it's basic.

Unless the license specifies that you can't create a class with a name identical to an existing class - which I see as a very improbable restriction - people will just "create" a class identical to the non-Basic class

Assuming it's not under OGL, then I'm certain that restriction will be in there - for exactly the reason you've given - cloned material would appear immediately.

I'm guessing 3 weeks or less after a license is released to the first warlock splatbook. Or maybe sorcerer. One of those two.

Almost certainly Sorcerer first, because it's in the OGL as-is. I also suspect said splatbook would not use the new license, because...

[*]The license will allow use of the Basic Rules and terms. I don't remember how much flavor text is in there, but that will be cut off by the license or removed;
[*]It will not be the OGL;

I suspect you're right about this, but I'm also reasonably sure that anything less than the OGL will be almost completely ignored. Why go for a more limited license when the OGL as-is will do almost everything you need anyway?

[*]There will be no SRD apart from the Basic Rules;
[*]There will be occasional additions to the Basic Rules, OR free supplements, like the Elemental Adventurer's Handbook, will occasionally be added to the license.
[*]It's possible that we'll only have access to the Basic Rules as they stand now, but I think that's unlikely. I'm not sure how they'll balance the desire to add "core" stuff like the sorcerer or warlock to the license without weakening the Basic Rules as ... "basic". Maybe it will be just the Basic stuff. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I like that option.

My hope is that they'll effectively open the whole of Basic, but also allow the use of names from the PHB and MM. That gives the best of both worlds - you can build on the rules foundation given in Basic, and you can also write adventures and splatbooks for anything else (without being able to just reprint, and thus clone the game).

[*]There will be some kind of "stuff you make with our stuff must be open for other people to make stuff with" requirement. There's no downside to WotC requiring this, and it fosters the community and exchange of creativity that's the core assumption of open licenses.
[*]They're going to be tight with the labeling and indicating compatibility stuff. Hell, they might have required wording you'll need to put on the cover;

Everything to here seems entirely reasonable. Where they hit problems...

[*]There will be no expiration date, but WotC will be able to revise or end the license at will;

I see this as the big sticking point. Faced with the possibility that the rug might be pulled out from under them at any time, I can see most companies electing simply to ignore the license. After all, the OGL can't be rescinded, so let's use that!

Incidentally, if they go with a license other than the OGL, I would expect some sort of "community standards" clause, allowing WotC to have 'questionable' material pulled. Basically, it would be a clone of the clause that was added to the d20 license in order to (try to) block the "Book of Erotic Fantasy". I can't imagine that they wouldn't want such a clause in there, especially if their new license allowed the use of some modified D&D logo (as did the GSL).

 

[jmucchiello]

Dude. Long time no see. (There are a ton of old posters crawling out the woodwork now.)

I'm a little confused, though. What is an "old school compatible 5e SRD"? Is it an OGL version of 5e? A smashup of 5e and OSRIC? An OSR game with 5e rules patched in?

Good to "see" you as well.

I was referring to an OSRIC style reverse engineering of 5e into the OGL as [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] points out would not necessarily be a safe thing to do. Off the top of my head, you might have to create your own names for concepts like Advantage and Disadvantage. The XP chart would have to be different. The concept of backgrounds might be given a different name. The role-play elements of character creation (having personality traits, etc as a chart) might require you to import the OSRIC SRD into your OGL. But for the most part, 5e does not have a lot of mechanics that don't already exist in OGL form. The only thing really stopping is (20' reach) threat of lawsuit.

 

[Nellisir]

Assuming it's not under OGL, then I'm certain that restriction will be in there - for exactly the reason you've given - cloned material would appear immediately.

The problem with that restriction is that it locks the door on a structure with no walls. I could call the warlock class a witch, and recreate it. So then the license has to get really precise and specific to counteract that, and I don't think they'll go that far. Also, it creates a mess if I create a witch class, and WotC subsequently creates it's own witch class. Which leads into....

I see this as the big sticking point. Faced with the possibility that the rug might be pulled out from under them at any time, I can see most companies electing simply to ignore the license. After all, the OGL can't be rescinded, so let's use that!

What I see is a situation where publishers do not have to cease sale or distribution of products created under an active license, when said license is revised, BUT it's not going to be one license, for ever and ever, amen. I don't know exactly how it would work.

Incidentally, if they go with a license other than the OGL, I would expect some sort of "community standards" clause, allowing WotC to have 'questionable' material pulled. Basically, it would be a clone of the clause that was added to the d20 license in order to (try to) block the "Book of Erotic Fantasy". I can't imagine that they wouldn't want such a clause in there, especially if their new license allowed the use of some modified D&D logo (as did the GSL).

Yeah, that's a given.

 

[MoonSong]

The one thing it wouldn't allow is a splatbook for some non-Basic class (or similar), but we could probably live without those.

I don't know you, but certain non basic classes are option starved, while the wizard is already fully covered....

 

[delericho]

The problem with that restriction is that it locks the door on a structure with no walls. I could call the warlock class a witch, and recreate it.

Yeah, it's a pain. Worse, we'd get half a dozen competing "witch" classes, none of which would really catch on - and lots of people wouldn't realise that "The Quintessential Witch" was actually a Warlock splatbook. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

What I see is a situation where publishers do not have to cease sale or distribution of products created under an active license, when said license is revised, BUT it's not going to be one license, for ever and ever, amen. I don't know exactly how it would work.

As I said, my suspicion is that anything less than the OGL will just be ignored - that any termination clause will be an effective deal-breaker. I might, of course, be wrong.

 

[Nellisir]

Yeah, it's a pain. Worse, we'd get half a dozen competing "witch" classes, none of which would really catch on - and lots of people wouldn't realise that "The Quintessential Witch" was actually a Warlock splatbook. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

And that's the argument for NOT putting in such a restriction. I don't think doing so would help WotC, and it would visibly hurt/confuse things. So, bad move.

 

[Nylanfs]

Monthly OGL License check. (Yes I know about Smiteworks)

 

[darjr]

The OGL didn't include digital support anyway.... right?

 

[Kramodlog]

What is this about? A shot at posters or a shot at WotC?

 

[RSKennan]

I don't think it's any kind of shot. It's an update to a thread to find out if anyone has heard anything.