D&D 5E Upcoming OGL-Related Announcement!

[Thaumaturge]

Where did Mearls discuss the idea of an OGL? He said, "I wanted to take a moment to address a common question we receive about the Open Gaming License and what it means for the future of D&D," and then spent the rest of the column carefully not addressing that question in any way.

I think this is [MENTION=18646]lkj[/MENTION] 's point. From what they are writing when they are writing about the article, it seems they think they are addressing the question.

My guess? They want to give certain parties a head start and are in the process of negotiating that. If they announce much more than what they did today, the head start looks less and less meaningful. But that's a guess. They could also just be dragging their feet on saying, "no".

Thaumaturge.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yes, but does any *publisher* want to bother publishing something that they can't clearly mark as to what game it is compatible with?

And, moreover - that works for monsters. Does it break down when you start talking about classed NPCs? To not be able to refer to 5e class features by name starts becoming clumsy for the end user.

So, can a fan creation be published that way? Probably. But I don't think it is a useful workaround for what most folks want the OGL for - third party publishers.

 

[tomBitonti]

Given the time lines, I have to wonder, how long until there is a well filled ecosystem of products?

What I am seeing so far are the initial books, mostly unspecified online content, an adventure-path like set of modules (which still have mostly to realize), and a new set of miniatures.

That's alright, but, doesn't seem to be enough to make for a big market.

So, what am I missing from that list? Is there any information about online resources (other than the already announced basic rules), or about sponsored events for game stores?

From what I am seeing, there will be a long delay (this summer to next summer) before the market really gets into gear. I'm not sure how the current schedule can generate enough momentum.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Morrus]

Bluntly put, why would you put in that extra work in order to produce content for the RPG occupying second place? When you could produce content for the RPG in first place and not bother?

Plenty of people produce third party content for plenty of games which are neither first or second place. FATE, Savage Worlds, Traveller - loads of games have third party publishers willing to produce for them.

 

[Holy Bovine]

The OGL-curious will have something to OGLe a few months from now.

I see what you did there....


and I'm deducting 50XP for it

 

[Umbran]

Bluntly put, why would you put in that extra work in order to produce content for the RPG occupying second place?

Present hindsight cannot be used to justify actions in the past.

Now, 4e is running in 2nd place. In the first few months after 4e came out, when folks were annoyed by the licensing, it was not obviously in second place. While there was argument and warring, the game was selling well, leading ICv2 reports, if I recall correctly. So, at the time, it was a good selling game, with a crappy licensing scheme. By the logic suggested, it would have been a prime target for cloning.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What does that have to do with the price of potatoes? I'm not talking about Dogs in the Vineyard, I'm talking about games with actual followings outside the internet echo chamber, like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings, and the WH40KRPG.

The point is that smaller audiences have different variables that go into what kind of license you need or want, so how L5R licenses isn't simply able to be copied over into how WotC should license.

The license is a product they are selling to content producers.

No it isn't. That's conjecture at this stage.

I see we've entered Argument Clinic territory.

Perhaps being a little less metaphorical would help here: It's something they're offering people in exchange for their time and effort at least (and possibly their money as well). It has to be worth an investment for content creators to partake of the license. By having any license, WotC would hope to take advantage of their labor (and possibly money). It's not a favor they're doing anyone, it's gotta be worth something (even if that something is only time and attention). The GSL is an example of a license that wasn't worth much to the content producers.

That may well be the case, but history has clearly shown that when these cases do go to court, the IP owner comes out ahead in the inevitable settlement.

That's the case when there is IP infringement, but you can make D&D compatible adventures without even a little IP infringement, if you want. Not every D&D-compatible product need be infringing.

Consumers also bought a hell of a lot of D&D4 product. In 3Q 2010 Pathfinder and D&D4 were tied for best selling RPG product. Pathfinder didn't start outselling D&D by a margin until D&D stopped being made.

That's runaway sales success on the PF side, AND it's a more open license. You can see pretty clearly why Pathfinder's license is more attractive to content creators, why so many more things were created to support PF than were created to support 4e.

That does not follow!

Any license WotC offers needs to compete with the OGL and Paizo's license (as well as lots of other licenses and other drains on peoples' time). The D&D brand and it's "official" capacity is of great value, but the GSL has shown that there are bad licenses that people will largely ignore if it isn't an attractive product.

Now, 4e is running in 2nd place. In the first few months after 4e came out, when folks were annoyed by the licensing, it was not obviously in second place. While there was argument and warring, the game was selling well, leading ICv2 reports, if I recall correctly. So, at the time, it was a good selling game, with a crappy licensing scheme. By the logic suggested, it would have been a prime target for cloning.

True enough. I think this points to other factors at work. Like not being sure how well 4e would do, or which 4e innovations were truly improvements. A lot of uncertainty in those first few days, a lot of controversy. 4e was also a sleek beast, and its bones weren't exactly transparent. But the issue is clearly more nuanced than "what's popular and has bad licensing gets cloned," that's for sure. Now, "what has bad licensing doesn't get as much stuff made for it" is pretty evident, I think.

 

[jrowland]

I think people are getting too hung up on the article. Mearls has a reputation for not-so-helpful L&L articles. I've discovered over the playtest that if I just take everything he writes as "Mearls shootin' off his mouth for 5 minutes as he runs to the bathroom" what he says is more agreeable. Yeah, I want to ask someone questions and wish he said more, but I am not about to sit in the stall next to him while he disposes of last nights Chipotle Burrito.

With that in mind, we know they have a plan, they aren't ready to discuss it yet, they have a good reason not to (ie its not a conspiracy, waiting for the DMG release is reasonable, OGL-like stuff is more legal so he is mum), and they have some stuff in store for "fans" that he teased with.

We already know Kobold Press has "an agreement" with WotC for the first 2 hardback modules. To think that WotC is "shutting out" 3PP is blatantly false. Kobold Press will likely be paid enough they felt it was worth doing (even if WotC utlimately publishes/prints the product). I think at a minimum we can expect more of that. Yes, it's more like a freelance gig, but I would not be surprised if say Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, Tracy Hickman, Margaret Weis, etc get similar treatment. Part of the tagline on Amazon.com is "• Adventure design and development by Kobold Press." which will probably appear on the back cover.

I personally expect there to be other "tiers" as well. Since we are in speculation mode, I'll go out on a limb:
Multi-Tier publishing rights:

• Highest Tier will be full 3PP privileges, with strict conditions and buy-in (ie $$), to develop, publish, and print 5E product.
• Next will be something like what Kobold Press has: Freelance work with a blurb (credit) on the cover, but published and printed by WotC
• Then I am thinking a lenient "adventure" space, similar to the OGL, but limited to adventures only. No crunch or limited crunch (advanced modules ok under certain guidelines such as they be highlighted as a side-bar and optional to the adventure - think of Pathfinders Kingmaker line with the whole dominion thing)
• Then perhaps a "fan marketplace" where schlubs like me can post content like the apple store: except I think it will be free and ranked. High ranking contributors given "permission" to submit for Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

One can dream.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, but does any *publisher* want to bother publishing something that they can't clearly mark as to what game it is compatible with?

Very good point. Of course, it leads to an interesting question: How close can you get to saying that your product is compatible with 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, without it crossing the line into infringement? I'm not an IP lawyer, so I don't know.

And, moreover - that works for monsters. Does it break down when you start talking about classed NPCs? To not be able to refer to 5e class features by name starts becoming clumsy for the end user.

No doubt, but 4E proved that you don't have to build NPCs using the PC rules. You could either build them as monsters, or take a leaf out of Mike Mearls's own playbook and create "villain classes."

 

[WizarDru]

My interpretation is rather the opposite of any SRD-like application. I think this article is Mike Mearls saying that fan content production will be in a safe harbor (i.e. no shades of late 90s TSR sending threatening e-mails to websites for putting up web pages with custom monster stats or new character classes and spells). I'm guessing that content used in the Basic D&D 'rolling' supplement will be considered game for fair-use, provided a boiler-plate disclaimer is used. For 3rd-party publishing, I'm guessing some kind of licensing program will be available, but that WotC hasn't managed to figure out the legal details of it yet (or how to find the fine line between 'giving it away' and 'charging so much that no one releases any product'. Fourteen years ago, it was much easier: most supplements were physical product in a limited supply channel of game stores and a limited exposure to larger book store chains...but now the lion's share of the material is in PDFs and probably presents a much greater challenge.