D&D 5E Upcoming OGL-Related Announcement!

[Umbran]

While I appreciate the serious treatment of the issue and I largely agree with you, you may have missed that the actual post you were replying to was a joke

To me, it looked like a serious post that happened to include a play on words.

 

[Dausuul]

With OSRIC, folks were cloning a product that was out of print, that WotC had no solid plan or intent to make significant money from in the near future. It was not worth WotC's time or money to pursue it, so it was never challenged in court.

Cloning their currently active product line, however, is a different kettle of fish. Technically speaking, it can be done. Practically speaking, it is asking for a lengthy and expensive legal challenge from WotC. I don't know of any major company for whom it would be worth the risk to clone 5e. And minor companies probably don't have the resources to go through the legal challenge intact.

So, I disagree. Don't look for a 5e clone within months.

There is a difference between a 5E clone and 5E-compatible content. For example:

GIANT WOMBAT (Beast)
Size: Large
Hit Points: 45 (6d10+12)
Speed: 30 ft, burrow 20
Special: Low-light vision
Abilities: Str 20 (+5), Dex 12 (+1), Con 14 (+2), Int 1 (-5), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 8 (-1)
Alignment: Nil

• Bite Attack: +7 to hit. 2d6+5 damage.
• Claw Attack: +7 to hit. 1d8 damage.
• Freak Out: The Giant Wombat makes a bite attack and two claw attacks.

Level: 5
XP: 250

Now, some things you will notice about this: I went out of my way to not exactly duplicate the 5E statblock. I even went so far as to use "nil" instead of "unaligned" for the alignment. The "actions" section is not named as such, even though it clearly presents a list of actions. Everything in this statblock is unquestionably covered by the 3E OGL.

But could you use this monster in a 5E adventure? As-is, straight off the page? Heck yes. It can't be advertised as 5E-compatible, but that's what it is.

 

[thundershot]

There is a difference between a 5E clone and 5E-compatible content. For example:


Now, some things you will notice about this: I went out of my way to not exactly duplicate the 5E statblock. I even went so far as to use "nil" instead of "unaligned" for the alignment. The "actions" section is not named as such, even though it clearly presents a list of actions. Everything in this statblock is unquestionably covered by the 3E OGL.

But could you use this monster in a 5E adventure? As-is, straight off the page? Heck yes. It can't be advertised as 5E-compatible, but that's what it is.

I like the way you think.... Creating 5E content shouldn't be that difficult...

 

[lkj]

So it's true that Mike, other than name dropping the OGL, seemed to talk primarily about fan-created content. But I notice that Greg Bilsland, in referring to Mike's article, says this:

"Today [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls discusses #dnd and the OGL, and why we're taking a deliberate approach with D&D publishers"


Take that for what it's worth. But it does suggest that they are thinking about publishers in this general approach. That of course doesn't tell you what they are thinking. But it is part of their plan.

Shrug.

AD

 

[DMZ2112]

They can certainly TRY that. If they do try that, I don't believe it'll be effective -- it won't function as intended. It won't keep poor-quality product from being produced that is affiliated with D&D. It's a bad way to meet their goal of high-quality D&D material.

That is how every commercial RPG outside the d20 continuum other than 13th Age functions. Those games generally have no fan-made retail product affiliated with them. Certainly, if they do, no one suggests it is in any way reflective of the quality of the official game.

It's not worth WotC's time to hunt down every fan PDF and sue its creator. It probably wasn't REALLY worth TSR's time. If for some reason I'm severely mistaken about how much Joe Blow's Compatible Adventure Path (as posted on Reddit) is worth for WotC's lawyers to go after, it's still a poor way to meet their goal, and an expensive one at that.

Your assertion was that nothing could stop IP squatters. Regardless of the efficiency of the methods involved, that statement is not true.

Aren't they the ones asking for our money? Aren't we entitled to withhold it unless they meet our needs?

Are you speaking from the perspective of a content producer or of a consumer? Because those are two very different positions and I am having trouble following you as a result. Consumers always have the right to vote with their wallets. Content producers do not always have the right to sell elements from someone else's IP because of some community mandate.

Which is why a curated shop would work well, and probably out-compete any independent folks who would care to try. But if they try forbidding things outside of that walled garden in any real concrete sense, it won't help them meet their goal.

You're moving the goalposts. If Wizards opens a curated store, how is that not establishing themselves as the arbiters of quality in D&D supplement design?

 

[Alzrius]

I like the way you think.... Creating 5E content shouldn't be that difficult...

This sentiment has been expressed a lot lately, and personally I'm all in favor of it, however one thing makes me suspicious that it will ever happen:

There wasn't an 4E-compatible game made under the OGL.

Now, there were some individual products put out under the OGL that were 4E-compatible (I seem to recall some early fare from Goodman Games), but there was nothing on the level of a 4E-compatible SRD or anything like OSRIC. Simply put, no one seemed to be willing to sink that much effort into such a project.

I hope I'm wrong here, but why should we expect 5E to be any different?

 

[darjr]

I'm hoping for an ogl. so take this in that light. they want to wait for the dmg to be done before they let the ogl out because they want to give those things made with it the best chance to be good and that means with all the content already available

 

[DMZ2112]

So it's true that Mike, other than name dropping the OGL, seemed to talk primarily about fan-created content. But I notice that Greg Bilsland, in referring to Mike's article, says this:

"Today @MikeMearls discusses #dnd and the OGL, and why we're taking a deliberate approach with D&D publishers"

Take that for what it's worth. But it does suggest that they are thinking about publishers in this general approach. That of course doesn't tell you what they are thinking. But it is part of their plan.

It may or may not be intentional, but that "and why" is a clear grammatical division. Mearls is not talking about A with B, or even A and B, he's talking about A and then talking about B. This tweet actually suggests to me exactly the opposite of what it suggests to you: that there's a "general" approach for content producers and then there is a "deliberate" approach to publishers. Thing 1 and Thing 2.

 

[Morrus]

It may or may not be intentional, but that "and why" is a clear grammatical division. Mearls is not talking about A with B, or even A and B, he's talking about A and then talking about B. This tweet actually suggests to me exactly the opposite of what it suggests to you: that there's a "general" approach for content producers and then there is a "deliberate" approach to publishers. Thing 1 and Thing 2.

To be fair, it's a tweet. Analyzing the grammar of tweets is a lose-lose scenario!

 

[DMZ2112]

To be fair, it's a tweet. Analyzing the grammar of tweets is a lose-lose scenario!

That is kind of my point. Bilsland's tweet was intended to publicize Mearls' article, nothing more.

Dissecting any part of this daily stream of communication is an exercise in futility. Everyone's got their own bias on what they read. If I had a dime for every time someone on this forum quoted a tweet from Mearls, replying, "This means OGL for sure!" or "Looks like the Starter Set will definitely have character generation!" I'd be a rich man.

A tweet is a tweet. It says what it says. No one's trying to hide meaning between words.