D&D 5E (2014) So, 5e OGL

[Morrus]

OK, the dripping sarcasm is getting a little much in this thread. Tone it down, please, folks.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think you are imposing an unnecessary interpretation. They made both names and flavor text closed, as was their right, because both of them had copious amounts of world-names and descriptions in them. It was easier to do a blanket cut-off then to delineate with each monster. But their monsters are fine, and (with some minor tweaking) very usable. I've used them in at least two different assignments.

I do not feel they have the moral right to put an undead ooze under the OGL and claim we don't have a right to call it an "undead ooze". The idea is risible. And "undead ooze" was not something that randomly fell under their restrictions; it was their choice of example.

There's an important part of sharing where the community builds a commons, a set of useful material that everyone knows and understands. Monster-wise, in 3.x, that was the SRD monsters and the Tome of Horrors monsters, maybe the Monster Geographica (which was pretty late). It was not the Creature Compendium, as monsters that have no name and no description don't exist. I suppose it might be a nice collection of mechanical bits for some, though I don't understand why, but it was not really an addition to the commons.

I notice you again interpret in the most uncharitable way possible. I think the better explanation is that they worded their statement poorly; but essentially all the mechanics of the book are going to be open, and all the fluff text is going to be closed. People learned how to say this more clearly as time went by, but you should make allowances for a learning curve.

I can't assume that "All game mechanics and statistics derivative of Open Game Content and the System Reference Document are to be considered Open Gaming Content." really meant "All game mechanics and statistics are to be considered Open Gaming Content." That's not being charitable; that's rudely putting (or, in this case, removing) words from their mouths because apparently they didn't know better.

To be honest, I have no idea what your complaint about the Paizo declaration is. I think its a model declaration. Clear, comprehensive and generous.

One of the problems I see with the OGL is that this is considered a model declaration. The Creature Collection had a fairly model declaration for clarity: The OGC material is "all creature statistic templates from Size Type (e.g. Small Undead) down to Advancement Range, and all Text under the "Combat" header of each creature's section (except the creatures name or proper names specific to the Scarred Lands setting.) It's pretty obvious what is OGC with that. The question, in Paizo's declaration, of what is "dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, [or] characters" has been the source of lawsuits. And this is on the PRD, which should be 100% OGC.

Edit: To be fair, the Paizo declaration is fairly clear on second glance. But is The Egyptian Mythos on D20PFSRD really okay?

The OGL did what it was supposed to

And I think other publishers should think about whether what the WotC needed for D&D is what they need for their system. I maintain that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are easier to use and clearer about what is actually free, that the CC-BY is better in practice for most case (wherein publishers who want to contribute back can use the CC-BY to do so) and the CC-BY-SA is much better if you actually want to compel that new work be added to the community.

 

[Hussar]

I guess my question becomes, what effect does the OGL actually have?

For a long time, the common wisdom was that the OGL was a major driving force behind the success of 3e. And proponents pointed to the lacklustre sales of 4e and it's absence of OGL as proof. It was a pretty decent theory as theories go. It certainly appeared that way.

Only, now, 5e throws all that into question. With no OGL whatsoever, 5e is blowing the doors off of sales. Every single metric we have access to says that 5e is selling like gangbusters.

So, does the OGL actually matter?

Look at Paizo and Pathfinder. Sure, I realise that without the OGL you can't have Pathfinder, so, at that point, it certainly has a huge effect. But, if we consider Paizo as a first party producer, how much effect does the 3pp for Pathfinder actually have? Is Pathfinder's success due, in part, to the support by 3PP? Or is it due to the fact that Paizo produces lots of top notch material that people want to buy and 3PP have little or no effect? Does a potential Pathfinder player look at, say, some 3PP module and say, "Hey, I guess I really do want to get into Pathfinder"? Or is it mostly the other direction - people play Pathfinder and eventually wander into 3PP territory and pick up books?

Look I don't know nor do I pretend to have any answers here. AFAIC, the magic 8-ball says, "It's very unclear".

I've long contended that the OGL and 3PP really don't matter very much in the big picture. That their contribution is relatively unimportant. Not many players and DM's actually use or buy 3PP relative to the total numbers. The percent of players or DM's who buy 3PP for use with D&D is so small that it just doesn't matter. Again, though, this is just a gut feeling and I have nothing to back that up with. All I know is, if a 3PP is selling less than 10000 copies, it doesn't even register as a blip on the vast majority of player's radars. And, I think, that the overwhelming majority of 3PP fall into that range.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For a long time, the common wisdom was that the OGL was a major driving force behind the success of 3e. And proponents pointed to the lacklustre sales of 4e and it's absence of OGL as proof. It was a pretty decent theory as theories go. It certainly appeared that way.

Ehhhh......while the OGL might've had some influence on 3e's boom and 4e's bust, I can't imagine it was that direct. The influence might've been more about tone-setting than anything else: the OGL signified a WotC who wanted to encourage fans to go the extra mile with their work supporting the game - the most hardcore fans are happy, so they're going to be evangelists. 4e's GSL, when it eventually hit, was very much more about supporting the 4e D&D that WotC was publishing (bits like "you can't redefine elf"). Hardcore fans (like Paizo!) now have reason to do other things, so they evangelize other things.

In that model, 5e's big tent design might already be doing much of the work that the 3e OGL did.

So, does the OGL actually matter?

It matters to me in that I want a diverse ecosystem of quality work to choose from for my D&D games. It could matter to WotC for reasons I tossed out a long time ago (reasons that aren't directly concerned with book sales).

It doesn't need to affect the fortunes of Hasbro significantly for it to actually matter.

 

[BryonD]

Ehhhh......while the OGL might've had some influence on 3e's boom and 4e's bust, I can't imagine it was that direct.

Agreed.
There is no question that there was "some influence", and I think it was a positive influence.
But the debate has been whether the OGL enhanced or detracted from the boom and/or longevity of 3E.
I would say that claiming "common wisdom was that the OGL was a major driving force behind the success of 3e" is a well off the mark.

It matters to me in that I want a diverse ecosystem of quality work to choose from for my D&D games. It could matter to WotC for reasons I tossed out a long time ago (reasons that aren't directly concerned with book sales).

Again, agreed.
It is really a shame that WotC's semi-open policy of micro-support doesn't align with off-loading that effort on 3PPs. It seems this is the best time in the games history to go there.

 

[prosfilaes]

Only, now, 5e throws all that into question. With no OGL whatsoever, 5e is blowing the doors off of sales.

There are noticeable third parties making works for 5E, more than 4E as far as I can tell.

Does a potential Pathfinder player look at, say, some 3PP module and say, "Hey, I guess I really do want to get into Pathfinder"? Or is it mostly the other direction - people play Pathfinder and eventually wander into 3PP territory and pick up books?

I think you should look at the people running the games, more than the players. Maybe it's different online, with more flexibility; I don't know, nor do I know how many people are playing that way. But tabletop, I think there's a lot of players who will play what's being run, especially between Pathfinder and D&D 5. It's the DMs who define more what's being run; I suspect the Encounters / Pathfinder Society people also make a huge impact on what players are playing. In a region of 100,000 Pathfinder/D&D players, I suspect the handful of people who spend all the volunteer time to guarantee a good Encounters / Pathfinder Society experience make a huge difference. And they're the people who kickstarted every RPG book to come to Kickstarter.

That is, I believe the people who do buy 3PP have a disproportionate impact on what is being run.

Also, the same thing that lets players drift back and forth between D&D 5 and Pathfinder also means that even if the numbers aren't quite right, 5E has huge volumes of ongoing 3PP support, i.e. everything published for AKCS, Pathfinder, Labyrinth Lords, DCC, Castles & Campaigns, etc. can be converted with more or less elbow grease to 5E. The effect of the OGL on the first D&D system to be OGLed and prior to the release of all the old D&D books on PDF is going to be a lot different then it would be on 5E with practically the whole back catalog of the RPG industry, including that 3.0 glut and fresh Pathfinder stuff, available.

Not many players and DM's actually use or buy 3PP relative to the total numbers.

What are the numbers that let you say that?

All I know is, if a 3PP is selling less than 10000 copies, it doesn't even register as a blip on the vast majority of player's radars.

That's a lot like saying that farmer's markets don't register as a blip on the vast majority of shoppers, because each individual farmer's market does a tiny bit of business compared to Wal-Mart. I'm sure the 3PP adventures I've run don't register as a blip on anyone's registers, but what I found useful as a DM is that I had a wide variety of adventures to dig through to find one that fit my needs.

 

[darjr]

Yes, I think the OGL matters. With a version of D&D that is compatible with the 3.5 srd and OGL 3rd parties throw in their support. I think this helps sell 5e. It does help sell it to me.

 

[jmucchiello]

The OGL did what it was supposed to

And I think other publishers should think about whether what the WotC needed for D&D is what they need for their system. I maintain that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are easier to use and clearer about what is actually free, that the CC-BY is better in practice for most case (wherein publishers who want to contribute back can use the CC-BY to do so) and the CC-BY-SA is much better if you actually want to compel that new work be added to the community.

Today, right now, there is no CC license that gets me 3rd edition D&D with the name stripped off. Or the D&D Retro clones with the D&D name stripped off. Or M&M or Pathfinder or a thousand other things. If you want to play in that sandbox, you must use the OGL. If you aren't playing in that sandbox, by all means use whatever license floats your boat. But that decision has no impact on whether or not the OGL did what it was supposed to do: Keep D&D alive and kicking for ever and ever regardless of who is its owner AND provide a place for 3rd party supplements to D&D.

 

[Nylanfs]

Fantasy Grounds and some of the other licensee's are meeting with WotC today. Maybe some info coming soon?

 

[Wicht]

Fantasy Grounds and some of the other licensee's are meeting with WotC today. Maybe some info coming soon?

I doubt it. Now when they invite other publishers to a meeting, I'll get my hopes up again.