Still one make-or-break issue for me...

[Walker N. Waistz]

After playtest, and feeling mostly positive about D&D Next's direction, I just had a surprising realization-- surprising as in, I genuinely didn't know that I felt this way, but it turns out I still definitely do. When it comes to Next, I am the equivalent of a "single-issue voter." And my single, make-or-break issue is this:

If D&D Next is open, like 3E was, I'm in. If it isn't, I'm not.

It's weird, because I kept looking at D&D Next with a critical consumer eye, but really, my line in the san is already drawn. Which makes me feel oddly bad for the design team. Since I am 99% that neither Mike Mearls not anyone working for him has any input on whether 5E licensing will look more like the OGL or the GSL, for this gamer, the quality or lack thereof in their work is meaningless. No matter how well they do their jobs, other employees at WotC-- employees who aren't game designers-- can still torpedo the whole thing for me.

So basically, I love where D&D Next is going and want it to be great... but I might not buy it, for reasons not affected by how good the game is. Anyone else feeling anything like this?

 

[Li Shenron]

I hope that 5e is going to be open, but for the benefits of others, not mine... because right now I have the feeling that I am most likely to stick to just a small bunch of books for 5e, compared to 3e, and that small bunch is probably going to be all WotC.

 

[DogBackward]

If D&D Next is open, like 3E was, I'm in. If it isn't, I'm not.

That's a very... odd requirement, to say the least. The license the game is under has literally no effect on the quality of the game, or whether the first books are worth buying. No matter what the license is, the base product will be exactly the same.

That's like saying "I love the taste of M&M's, but I refuse to buy them because the company won't let other companies make and sell their own M&M's flavors."

For the gaming community, the 3e license was amazing, one of the best things that could have happened. From a business standpoint... it was a mistake. The success of Pathfinder alone shows that Wizards made a bad decision in allowing other people to use their license to create their own materials. Paizo stole a huge chunk of WotC's market with Pathfinder. Something I'm sure they're not keen on seeing happen again.

Aside from giving their competitors the ability to use their own materials against them, it allowed a huge number of sub-par, frankly just plain crap material to be put out with the D&D logo on it. Imagine if Picaso or Van Gogh had decided that they'd allow anybody to sign their names to any work of art, no matter what it was. Yeah, some people would realize that most of the works that say "Van Gogh" weren't actually done by Van Gogh... but his name would still have become nigh worthless in the art world.

But really... none of that actually matters. In the end, the game will be good or it will be bad (with what I've seen so far, I'm leaning toward the "good" side). But that will be completely independent of the business decisions made by WotC. And if you want to cheat yourself out of a great game because you don't like the license it's under... go for it. Your loss.

 

[GSHamster]

That's a very... odd requirement, to say the least. The license the game is under has literally no effect on the quality of the game, or whether the first books are worth buying. No matter what the license is, the base product will be exactly the same.

I would argue that the brilliance of the OGL/d20 licence is that it speaks to the soul of D&D.

D&D has always been a creative game, especially for DMs. We make adventures, villains, dungeons, house rules, stories, worlds, cities, pantheons. And we have a natural inclination to want to share our stuff, our creative endeavors, with our fellow gamers.

The OGL allowed that natural creativity and drive to share to flower in full force. It was even bolder than most of us expected, as it said that if we thought our work was good enough, we could even sell it, and see if anyone would buy it. How many of us have thought about working for TSR, being the ones to make the adventures? The OGL offered a path to live out that dream.

The OGL uncovered the hidden soul of D&D. 1E and 2E were less than they could have been, because the OGL had not been thought of yet. 4E--for all that it is a good game--chose to try and go back, to wall people off from that essence of D&D. And a lot of people strongly disliked 4E for that reason.

Our eyes have been opened by the OGL, and we can't go back. We cannot be satisfied by the industry as it used to be.

 

[nnms]

I'm almost a single issue voter on this.

My number one issue is: Show us that the talk about modularity wasn't just talk.

But my number two issue is: Make it open.

However, my reasoning is the same for both. If WotC can't deliver on modularity to produce the type of play I want, I want to be able to get modules, hacks and ideas from other designers to make it the type of game I want.

And given the recent talk of "rulings not rules" from Mearls, I'm thinking WotC is going to drop the ball on modularity as that type of thinking demonstrates a clear misunderstanding that the rules can produce the type of play you're looking for. The best D&D does not come from the times the system fails (or is incomplete) and one person has to rescue it with a ruling.

But if the game is open (like truly OGL open), then where WotC fails to deliver, others can step in.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You're absolutely right. An open gaming license, once established, became the standard for the business. If I can't access the rules text online without paying for it, if I don't have the freedom to modify it and create what I want and put it online, if other companies aren't able to use the game and expand on it...

D&D has always been a creative game, especially for DMs. We make adventures, villains, dungeons, house rules, stories, worlds, cities, pantheons. And we have a natural inclination to want to share our stuff, our creative endeavors, with our fellow gamers.

Well put.

 

[triqui]

Just a question to the OP: would you buy it if it is open license, but a bad game? Because there are a lot of open games out there, some of them are good and some others are bad. You could buy those instead.

I don't really understand buyers that buy for reasons that aren't really consumer's choice. Those kind of people who say "i wont buy X because this company supports the republicans/democrats" or "I won't see X film because Y actor supports Z issue". If the product fits my needs, I'll buy it, if it does not, I won't. "Single vote issues" are for elections, this is just a buy. You pay for a product, you get it. End of story.

But I guess some other people might have different views.

 

[Croesus]

To everyone who insists on a new OGL for DDN:

1. This is a business decision for WOTC, so approach it in that manner.

2. The hard part: Provide a convincing business case for providing a new DDN OGL. Use hard facts, not vague generalizations such as "D&D is a creative game" or "The first OGL made 3.x a success" (correlation does not equal causation).

3. The really hard part: Post a draft OGL for DDN on these boards. The draft OGL has to protect WOTC's interests, or they won't - and shouldn't - use it. The draft OGL will have to include some constraints on use of WOTC material (even the 3.x OGL had constraints):
- No using DDN material to create competing rules/games that do not require use of WOTC DDN rulebooks and/or online offerings.
- No repackaging of the DDN rules to compete with WOTC rulebooks and/or online offerings.
- No using the DDN material to create electronic tools that compete with WOTC online offerings.
- Does encourage 3PP's to produce material other than the above.

Anybody think you can write an OGL that does those things? If not, don't expect WOTC to offer a new OGL. As has been said ad nauseum, WOTC concluded that, from a business standpoint, the original OGL was a disaster for them. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with that assessment, that's the company's thinking and if you want to change it, you need to do more than simply talk about it. Produce a reasonable draft OGL, then we'll see.

One comment: I would love to see DDN have an OGL. But I recognize that it won't unless WOTC can draft an OGL that limits how other companies can use DDN to directly compete with WOTC. Unless that issue can be addressed satisfactorily, all the "line in the sand" talk isn't going to produce an OGL. As the saying goes, let's work the problem - in this case, drafting an OGL that protects WOTC's product, while also benefiting the hobby.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I know this sounds kinda petty, but I hope there is never again an OGL...maybe in 10 or so more years people will stop asking companies to give away there main sourcs of income...

 

[I'm A Banana]

If 5e is open, it will just be doing what someone will do in 10 years with a retroclone, anyway.

I don't believe that the core rules are WotC's main source of income. I believe that everyone who plays D&D is WotC's main source of income. Which is why a subscription model (a la Pathfinder or DDI) works wonders.

I'm not a single-issue player on this, but open gaming is defiantly one of my Big Issues. If they get it wrong, it can certainly sour me. If they get it right, it will certainly encourage me.