D&D 5E Upcoming OGL-Related Announcement!

[Mistwell]

I would imagine their treatment of Paizo played into that? Suddenly cutting off Paizo from their highly successful stewardship of Dragon and Dungeon can't have been reassuring for anyone else contemplating a business model that relied on "Trust Wizards to let you produce stuff under license."

I don't like this characterization of "suddenly" cutting them off. Let's be clear - it was the end of their contract term, and they were not renewed. But WOTC gave them an extension on that contract so they could wrap up their current AP. It was not a sudden cut-off, and they treated Paizo well at the time, and Paizo said so at the time. Paizo didn't express distrust of Wizards at the time, and I don't think we should try and re-write history to pretend it was a sudden cut-off that made Paizo distrust WOTC and think ill of them.

This sort of thing just makes the edition wars worse. I wish people would take the leads of the actual individuals at WOTC and Paizo. They make it clear they don't dislike each other and there is nothing but respect and admiration for each other - why do fans have to pretend it's something it's not, and try and turn events into bigger things than they are?

 

[JVisgaitis]

Aside from really wanting to know now, I think this is a smart approach. It avoids the immediate glut and people trying to jump on right away just to make a quick buck. My guess for how they are going to handle this is that they go with an App Store type model and all 3rd Party D&D Next stuff will only be sold through their website. That let’s them vet what products get released and ensure it’s all quality stuff (and avoid the whole Book of Erotic Fantasy thing). Plus, they’ll get a cut (25%?) which will help the bottom line. If Next is an edition where 3rd Party products are semi-official in this type of setup it should do really well. Lots of possibilities here including reviewing/featuring 3rd Party products, using 3rd Party content (assuming there is some type of open model), and stuff like that. I REALLY hope this is how they do it.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Some companies totally made it work. My perceptional was that the GSL was a lot less popular than the d20STL among most of the publishers, just judging from the amount of d20 3PP products vs. the amount of 4e 3PP products. Though I could be wrong about that perception!

I think there were a lot of factors at work here not just the license itself (we didn't have an issues with the license). Among them: 4e was harder to develop for (you ever trying designing a new class? Ugh!). The game changed dramatically and publishers had to learn everything all over and start from scratch. The community was fairly split on a new edition. The general uncertainty of 3rd party support for 4e didn't help either and somewhat forced publisher's hands. It became easier to stick with what they knew and support Pathfinder instead. Lead time probably had a lot to do with it too. By the time publishers got around to be able to support 4e, Pathfinder carved out a decent chunk of the market and was a safer bet.

 

[Plageman]

The situation was very similar when 3e came out and the market flooded very quickly. Death in Freeport from Green Ronin hit the stores before any official adventures. Many of the companies you mention existed solely to provide d20 content at the time, and there is no reason a new group of them couldn't pop up again. These days, with the advances in self publishing, it would be even easier for this to happen. I don't think we would see a flood and collapse, hobby stores are going to be a lot more cautious these days after what happened 10 years ago, but I feel if DnD does open up like that there would be plenty of content pretty quickly even if it isn't as much as what we saw for 3e.

Back then publishing D&D 3.0 products was the only way of publishing content without developing your own RPG system. In 2014 there is a good number of D20 variant you can publish for (PFRPG, 13th age, M&M) or non D20 (FATE, Traveller, D6, Savage Worlds, Runequest/Legend) if that is you taste.

Add to that with the advances in e-publishing and POD so you don't need to have the problems of managing warehouses and shipping issues, and you have a landscape which is much, much more fragmented.

So my guess is that we won't see any product flood because the market isn't the same anymore. Folks invested in Pathfinder will not switch to 5e overnight because there is no need to do so. They can afford to wait and see what the licensing plan will be and continue to successfully sell PFRPG products. IMHO only -new- game companies created to support 5e from the start may be impacted but I don't think that so many people are really interested, most of the outrage come from not letting -non-profit- fans knowing what they can and cannot post during the 6 first months. For the others I don't see a couple of month being a real issue especially since the DMG is actually published only in November.

 

[Mistwell]

Good luck defending a matter of opinion as trade dress. That's right up there with GW trying to trademark "Space Marine". We have two places in town that feature "Worlds Greatest Chili Dog" on their signs.

I think it would be no problem at all. It's not a claim about being the world's greatest game - it's saying they are compatible with the world's greatest game, which is an entirely different claim. It would be like one hot dog company saying "We sell that other hot dog company's hot dogs" and not "we make the same kind of quality claims about our hot dogs as that other hot dog company". It's referring directly to the actual product in question with that trade dress at the other company, and saying they are compatible with that other company's products.

I am not saying this in a speculative way - this is the actual legal advice I'd give to a client (and I do represent d20 companies). WOTC just made that description part of their trade dress. You can make that same claim on your own about your own product if you wish - but don't refer TO WOTC's products with your own using that same claim, because you would likely be infringing on their trade dress. You'd be trying to create consumer confusion at that point.

 

[DaveMage]

Do you think if the GSL had been there for 3.x instead of the OGL, people would have lauded it as much as they do the OGL? Honest question.

It would totally depend on what products were made with it.

For me, the awesomeness of the OGL was/is best reflected in the products by Necromancer Games and Frog God Games. If the GSL had prevented those products from happening, then I would not have lauded the GSL as much as I do the OGL. Since Necro shied away from the GSL, my guess is that they would not have made the products they did, and the gaming world today would suck.

If the product volume produced under the GSL for 4E was the same for 3.x, then a lot fewer people would likely care about the license *unless* the GSL was used by people (fans) to just put their own stuff on the web (not charging for it) without being sued.

 

[Umbran]

In 2014 there is a good number of D20 variant you can publish for (PFRPG, 13th age, M&M) or non D20 (FATE, Traveller, D6, Savage Worlds, Runequest/Legend) if that is you taste.

Savage Worlds is not OGL. There's a fairly open form for fan works, but for commercial use, they're negotiated licenses on a case-by-case basis.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think it would be no problem at all. It's not a claim about being the world's greatest game - it's saying they are compatible with the world's greatest game, which is an entirely different claim. It would be like one hot dog company saying "We sell that other hot dog company's hot dogs" and not "we make the same kind of quality claims about our hot dogs as that other hot dog company". It's referring directly to the actual product in question with that trade dress at the other company, and saying they are compatible with that other company's products.

I am not saying this in a speculative way - this is the actual legal advice I'd give to a client (and I do represent d20 companies). WOTC just made that description part of their trade dress. You can make that same claim on your own about your own product if you wish - but don't refer TO WOTC's products with your own using that same claim, because you would likely be infringing on their trade dress. You'd be trying to create consumer confusion at that point.

Imagine the confusion if every published rpg used that as part of their trade dress.

WOW!! This module is awesome. Its compatible with every rpg out there!

 

[Plageman]

Savage Worlds is not OGL. There's a fairly open form for fan works, but for commercial use, they're negotiated licenses on a case-by-case basis.

True but you still can publish for it without too much hassle.

 

[sidonunspa]

I think it would be no problem at all. It's not a claim about being the world's greatest game - it's saying they are compatible with the world's greatest game, which is an entirely different claim. It would be like one hot dog company saying "We sell that other hot dog company's hot dogs" and not "we make the same kind of quality claims about our hot dogs as that other hot dog company". It's referring directly to the actual product in question with that trade dress at the other company, and saying they are compatible with that other company's products.

I am not saying this in a speculative way - this is the actual legal advice I'd give to a client (and I do represent d20 companies). WOTC just made that description part of their trade dress. You can make that same claim on your own about your own product if you wish - but don't refer TO WOTC's products with your own using that same claim, because you would likely be infringing on their trade dress. You'd be trying to create consumer confusion at that point.

Comparable with the Next version of the world famous fantasy role-playing game