D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[DEFCON 1]

There's a great reason for them to do it. The Roman Empire strategy. More and more companies are going their own way producing compatible products. By providing a license, WotC can pull all that under their sphere of influence. They can make them vassal countries rather than rebel countries.

How so? Are you saying that if WotC designates some of their content as Open, that companies that use said content will agree to whatever rules WotC puts in place for their use (thereby "controlling" what is and isn't released to a certain extent)? If that's what you mean, I suppose I can understand that in theory. But honestly... how much 5E material would have to be made Open by WotC to make other people agree to fall in line (so that they can put the D&D logo on their product?) Where's the balance point? Where there's enough of a benefit for a 3rd party to only release their products under WotCs terms in order to get the "brand identity" bump in advertising? But on WotC's end, not so much 5E material designated as Open that other companies can start releasing product that reproduces material like monster statblocks where the purchaser no longer is required to buy WotC's books in order to use the product? Because that's the real reason why WotC wouldn't want to make their 5E product Open.

 

[Morrus]

How so? Are you saying that if WotC designates some of their content as Open, that companies that use said content will agree to whatever rules WotC puts in place for their use (thereby "controlling" what is and isn't released to a certain extent)? If that's what you mean, I suppose I can understand that in theory. But honestly... how much 5E material would have to be made Open by WotC to make other people agree to fall in line (so that they can put the D&D logo on their product?)

I would love to be able to use a logo and some strong branding. 'Official' blessing makes a huge difference. You're right in that the openness of the content isn't that important these days, given that most of the terminology is already open. There are a few things, but not a huge amount.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My next question then (since you are in the middle of producing product and thus have a much stronger grasp of the ins and outs of OGL usage than I do) would be whether WotC would need to actually Open 5E to the OGL in order to allow someone like yourself to use D&D 5E logos and branding, or could they make a separate agreement to allow it without the OGL being involved at all? I honestly have no idea.

 

[Celtavian]

I think it feels less risky if the support between WotC and the 3rd parties is mutual.

 

[Morrus]

My next question then (since you are in the middle of producing product and thus have a much stronger grasp of the ins and outs of OGL usage than I do) would be whether WotC would need to actually Open 5E to the OGL in order to allow someone like yourself to use D&D 5E logos and branding, or could they make a separate agreement to allow it without the OGL being involved at all? I honestly have no idea.

Letting someone use your logos had nothing to do with the OGL. Paizo uses a separate logo licenses for third parties. The d20 System Trademark License was another example.

 

[Jester David]

It's not a new OGL, it's a 5E SRD.

As far as Paizo taking the lead "shepherding" new talent... so what? Why should that be a concern? To WotC or anyone else? If that's what Paizo has become and continues to be, then good for them! If new writers feel trying to release Pathfinder products is the safest bet due to the PF SRD, then they can go right ahead and learn the trade that way.

The only reason why a new writer wouldn't want to do that would be if they felt they wouldn't actually make much money that way, and wanted to release 5E products because that's the "new big thing" most likely to generate revenue. But it's not WotC's job to create revenue for people outside their company. And if a 5E SRD would allow people outside the company to take the statblocks and data WotC's already created and put them directly into their products (thereby not requiring a person to actually need a 5E PH or MM at the table to play the product they made), then what urge does WotC have to release an SRD?

Right now things seem to be in a place WotC probably prefers. Because there's no 5E SRD, there's no major infux of 5E product watering everything down, and instead it's a lighter trickle. There's still a large playground of additional material still to be mined from the 5E game that WotC can create for themselves (while a few other companies produce additional products too using 3E and PF terms for 5E material, thereby giving those fans who want more "stuff" the chance to get it).

The only thing lost by not having a 5E SRD is every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to make money off the back of WotC. But I would not think they'd consider that a big loss.

Eventually, WotC will want a new writer to do something. Their go-to studios will be too busy or uninterested in another D&D adventure, and they'll need a new publisher to take over. Or said licenced publishers will need new writers. Or WotC themselves will need new staff. And it's easier to find someone who can do the job if they've been writing and publishing books already.

Mearls and Crawford both got their start in the industry with 3rd Party Products. This current generation of designers is getting their start through Pathfinder and will be more indebted and focused on that system.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think we've seen that people have been willing to work on D&D at WotC regardless of whether they got their start writing products for them.

And besides, there currently is an outlet for people to write D&D product... all the AL modules. Alphastream has done some really good work for them and is someone that could be in the pipeline for perhaps future employment. Independent OGL work is not a necessity.

 

[Jester David]

I think we've seen that people have been willing to work on D&D at WotC regardless of whether they got their start writing products for them.

The problem isn't people working on D&D, it's people legally working on and supporting 5e. There's a lot of stuff the fans could do, and we just don't know about the legality.
I've said before that the OGL has two very different audiences: the publishers wanting to produce books for profit and the fans wanting produce books for fun. The former can muddle through with the 3e OGL (as they're a business and likely know a lawyer and have experience reading and interpreting the OGL) but the latter generally can't, or it's simply trickier.
No OGL to prevent 3PP is fine and WotC's prerogative (many would disagree about the benefits of the OGL, but in the end it's WotC's call), but nothing aimed at fans is problematic and puts them in a legal bind that not everyone will realize.

And supporting fan creations can be beneficial to WotC. For example, conversion documents for past adventures. That would be beneficial, as a list of monsters and advice for old modules could encourage people to buy PDFs for those off DriveThru RPG. But, currently, there's no solid guidelines for how should people present such a document and where the line is drawn.
Can you copy monsters? What about adding classes to monsters or making classed NPCs? If you can't copy monsters from the Monster Manual, what about the Basic rules? Plus, new monsters. The Monster Manual was awesome but there's a lot of absent monsters, which might be needed to convert content. However, the statblock of 5e monsters is part of WotC's trade dress, so that cannot be legally copied, even under the OGL. Any 3rd Party monster needs to have a different statblock set-up, which can be confusing and make the product harder to read.

Plus, at the very least, guidelines that tell fans what not to do saves WotC from earning potential negative publicity from having to shut down fan sites and projects.

And besides, there currently is an outlet for people to write D&D product... all the AL modules. Alphastream has done some really good work for them and is someone that could be in the pipeline for perhaps future employment. Independent OGL work is not a necessity.

Those have higher standards and require approval. There was an open call and the vast majority of applicants were rejected because they only do two each month and there's a decent pool of adventure writers already known from past RPGA seasons. Plus, a lot of authors do multiple modules in a year, so there might be only one or two slots free. That's some stiff competition.

 

[Hussar]

But doesn't that mean there's a stable of experienced adventure writers to draw from?

 

[Mark CMG]

So, Gen Con announcement for the OGL? Who thinks "Yes" and who thinks "No?"